List Of Document Revisions (Company)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: sorted by created_at descending, limit of 20, pagination metadata, and API endpoint. No contradictions. Minor gap: no mention of rate limits or authentication details, but the endpoint hints at authorization.

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 a single paragraph of four sentences, front-loading the main action and key details. The API endpoint information is included but doesn't bloat; it could be considered extra. Overall efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, annotations, and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential aspects: what is returned, sorting, pagination, required parameters, and endpoint. No missing critical details. Could mention possible response structure but not necessary without output schema.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds that page and per_page control pagination and response includes metadata, which is useful but minimal. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides sufficient semantics.

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 verb ('Return a list'), the resource ('file versions/revisions'), and the scope ('for a specific document in a company'). It adds sorting and limit details. The sibling tool 'list_of_document_revisions_project' is distinguished by context, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 advises when to use the tool (enumerate documents, find IDs, filter by query), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives. The sibling tool is not referenced, so an agent might not know to switch contexts.

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