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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them with the highest-value disclosure here: the status enum interpretation and the explicit warning that 'dispatched' means the mission started, never that work succeeded. That prevents a serious misread of the data.

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?

Three tight sentences, each front-loading its key fact (what rows contain, the status caveat, ordering/pagination). No filler, and the critical caveat is placed where an agent will read it.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: row contents, status semantics, joined mission data, ordering, and pagination are all covered. An agent can call and correctly interpret this without further context.

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%, so scheduledTaskId, limit, and cursor are already documented; the description largely restates the cursor round-trip that the schema describes. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the parameter work.

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+resource ('Run history for one scheduled task') and immediately enumerates the row contents (status, joined mission progress/cost). This clearly separates it from sibling get_scheduled_task (task config) and list_scheduled_tasks (the task list itself).

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?

Explains ordering ('newest first') and the exact pagination workflow ('pass nextCursor back as cursor for the next page'), which is the operative how-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly contrast with get_scheduled_task or list_scheduled_tasks, so it falls short of 5.

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