Fetch one historical page version

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that content is bounded by WIKI_MAX_CONTENT_BYTES and that when truncated, the result includes a truncation marker and `contentTruncated: true`. This is valuable transparency beyond what structured fields would show.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the action and return fields, the second covers truncation behavior and a usage example. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a low-complexity tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers return fields, truncation behavior, and a practical use case. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (pageId and versionId) already documented. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond stating that versionId should come from wiki_page_history, which the schema already mentions. The baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool fetches one historical revision of a page as a full snapshot, listing the exact fields returned. It distinguishes from siblings like wiki_get_page (current version) and wiki_page_history (list of versions) by emphasizing 'historical revision' and 'full snapshot'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides an explicit use case ('Pair two calls to show a before/after when explaining a change') and references the truncation rule from wiki_get_page, which implicitly differentiates it from the current-page tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.