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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add a genuine access-scope disclosure ('Returns only data visible to the linked Market Brew account'), but says nothing about pagination defaults or result size despite the query supporting offset/pageSize.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the usage trigger is front-loaded. Efficient, though the second sentence is the only substantive content.

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 two-parameter tool with a nested filter object and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It establishes scope and access limits, but omits any hint about the filter object's role or the shape/size of returned history data.

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 only 50% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. It never mentions that taskId is required or explains the filter object (websiteId, startDate, pageSize, etc.), leaving half the parameter surface undocumented.

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 essentially restates the tool title ('get one task's calculation history'), so it borders on tautology. It does scope the operation to a single task, which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_task_history, but it never names that sibling or clarifies what 'calculation history' contains.

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?

It gives a trigger condition ('when the user asks to get one task's calculation history'), which is implied usage rather than explicit guidance. No alternatives are named (e.g. list_task_history for multi-task views) and no when-not conditions are provided.

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