List document versions

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context about when versions are snapshotted (on modification of completed documents) and what fields each version contains, going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 plus a return structure line. Front-loads the action and purpose, no redundant words. Every sentence contributes.

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 read-only list tool with pagination parameters well-defined in schema, the description covers purpose, return structure, and version semantics. It doesn't discuss error handling or default values, but those are either in schema or not critical for a safe read operation. Lacks explicit mention of pagination defaults, but schema provides them.

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 covers 75% of parameters with descriptions (id, page, limit). The description does not elaborate on parameters, leaving response_format's markdown vs json behavior ambiguous. Given high schema coverage, the baseline is acceptable, but the description adds no parameter-specific value.

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 'List the change history of a document' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_documents by focusing on versions of a single document and includes an audit use case that reinforces its unique purpose.

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 ties usage to audit questions ('was this invoice altered after it was issued?'), giving clear context for when to use the tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context implies it's for version history rather than document listing/retrieval, which is clear but not fully explicit.

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