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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description contributes the newest-first ordering and the cursor-based pagination mechanic. It also implies entries are timestamped and incrementally consumable, which the annotations do not say. It stops short of stating retention window or whether all change types are recorded.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then usage motive, then the pagination mechanic. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, ordering, and how to page through results, while the schema handles the remaining parameter details. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 75%, with mode, limit, and cursorTs all documented in the schema itself. The description adds genuinely useful value for cursorTs by explaining the pagination loop (pass the ts of the last entry), but says nothing about agentId, limit boundaries beyond the schema's 'max 100', or when to choose compact vs full mode.

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 the change history of an agent — and defines the returned shape ('who changed what and when, newest first'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling read tools such as get_agent, which returns current state rather than history.

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?

Gives concrete situations that select this tool: explaining an unexpected behaviour change or finding when a setting was edited. It does not name a competing alternative, but no sibling offers audit history, so the routing guidance is essentially complete.

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