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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, non-open-world profile, so the description is free to add operational detail instead. It discloses result ordering (newest first), that the history includes inter-scan deltas, and the pagination mechanism via nextCursor — all beyond what annotations provide.

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 tightly written sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the pagination/sibling routing trailing. The only cost is the ambiguous scanId mention, which adds a small amount of noise for a parameter this tool does not accept.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers ordering, deltas, pagination, and sibling routing. The one gap is the 'site or topic' claim, which is not backed by the schema (only siteId is accepted), leaving the agent unsure whether topic-scoped history is actually supported.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It partially compensates by explaining the cursor via 'Paginate with nextCursor', but never explains limit or siteId, and worse, it introduces 'scanId', which is not a parameter of this tool and could lead an agent to pass an unsupported argument.

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 ('Read saved strategic goal edits'), names the scope ('for a site or topic'), and adds the ordering guarantee ('newest first, including changes between scans'). It also distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling by name, so an agent can separate this from get_scan_config without reading either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent elsewhere for the scan-specific case ('For the goal used by a specific scan, pass scanId to get_scan_config') and states how to page through results. It does not say when this history view is preferable to just reading current config, but the primary exclusion is covered.

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