get_page_versions

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination or result-limit behavior, no ordering (newest-first?), no indication of whether the current live version is included, and no note about how many versions exist.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true economy.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, this is roughly adequate. Because there is no output schema, the description should have hinted at the returned structure (version identifiers, ordering), which it does not.

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?

Single required parameter page_id with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it. Baseline 3 applies; the description contributes no extra meaning such as ID format or how to obtain a page_id.

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 and resource: 'View version history of a page.' The 'page' qualifier implicitly separates it from get_file_versions and save_file_version, but it never explicitly names or contrasts those siblings, and it doesn't say what 'version history' contains (IDs, timestamps, authors).

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives offered. An agent cannot tell from this text whether it should call get_page_versions, get_page_source, or list_page_drafts to inspect a page's prior states.

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