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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the 50-entry limit, newest-first ordering, and the included fields (source, label, snapshot name, file count, secrets). It also notes access control ('any team member'), which annotations don't cover.

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 clear sentence that front-loads key information. It is concise and contains no unnecessary words, though a slight restructure could improve readability.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (so return values need not be described), the description adequately covers ordering, limit, and included fields. However, it could clarify the optionality of parameters (none are required) and how they affect the query.

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 input schema has two parameters ('name', 'siteId') with no descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'for a site' but does not explain which parameter identifies the site or whether both are needed. It fails to add meaningful semantic context beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return'), identifies the resource ('deploy and snapshot history entries'), and includes constraints (most recent 50, newest first) and field details. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_deploys and list_snapshots.

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 states that any team member can read history but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_deploys or list_snapshots. The usage context is implied but not spelled out.

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