Get one stored version

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, covering the mutation-safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that the full historical body is returned and indicating that reading both versions is more expensive than diffing, though it does not discuss auth or rate limits.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded and the alternative-tool guidance is placed in a separate, clearly scoped sentence.

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 read tool with a fully documented parameter schema and read-only annotation, the description covers the primary return characteristic (full body of the historical version). It could mention response shape more explicitly, but most needed information is present.

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 already documented as the numeric Wiki.js id and the version id from list_page_history. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so baseline 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?

States the verb 'Returns' and the exact resource: 'a single historical version of a page'. It also clarifies the body is included and explicitly names diff_page_versions as the sibling for comparison, so the tool is clearly distinguished from related tools.

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?

Gives explicit guidance: use this tool when you need one stored version with its full body, and use diff_page_versions instead when checking changes. The 'far cheaper than reading both' rationale makes the routing decision actionable.

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