Get traceability event revisions

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the result set includes superseded and voided facts, not just live ones. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or farm scoping, so it stops short of rich disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier ('including superseded and voided facts') lands immediately after the core action.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is close to sufficient, and it correctly clarifies that historical facts are included. It leaves the farm_id parameter and any result ordering or size limits undocumented, which is a real gap given 0% schema coverage.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and says nothing about either parameter. event_id's role is inferable from the tool name, but farm_id is entirely unexplained — whether it scopes the query, is required, or alters results is unknowable from both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('stored revision of a typed event') and clarifies scope with 'including superseded and voided facts'. An agent can distinguish it from get_traceability_event (current state) and correct_/void_traceability_event (mutations), though the sibling differentiation is implicit rather than named.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not statement, and no alternatives are named. However, 'including superseded and voided facts' implies the audit/history use case (e.g., after a correction or void), which is enough to imply intent but not to route decisively.

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