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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation by describing it as retrieving history and recorded data, with no mention of side effects or mutations. This is transparent enough for an agent to infer safety.

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 with a clear structure: what it returns, example queries, and a usage hint. It is slightly verbose (e.g., the leading 'HISTORY:' label) but remains focused and under 100 words.

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?

The description explains the output types (open commitments, follow-ups, timeline summaries) and mentions the sessions parameter for timeline depth. It does not include potential errors or return format details, but given the absence of an output schema, this level of detail is adequate.

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?

The schema already covers all three parameters, but the description adds useful context: relationship can be a key from list_relationships, and sessions controls the timeline depth. This supplements the schema without redundancy.

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 resource (history recorded by Mainroom agents) and the scope (per account, team, or person). It also provides concrete example queries ('where are we with Acme') that make the purpose immediately actionable.

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 explicitly says 'Use it to answer...' and lists example use cases, giving clear guidance on when to invoke this tool. It does not contrast it with sibling tools like list_relationships, but the examples are sufficient for typical usage.

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