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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds one behavioral fact beyond the annotation: results are ordered such that following next_offset moves to earlier edits. It says nothing about page size, auth requirements, or whether draft_id scoping is mandatory.

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 tight sentences with the content of the result front-loaded and the pagination hint second; nothing is wasted. It is arguably under-specified for the 0% schema coverage, but brevity itself is handled well.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations beyond readOnly, and zero parameter documentation, the description should carry more burden than it does. It never defines the offset/draft_id inputs or the shape of a history entry beyond three field names.

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%, so the description must carry both parameters, but it only gestures at pagination via 'next_offset' — a name that does not even match the actual 'offset' parameter — and never explains 'draft_id' or its 'main' default. The agent learns the return payload but not how to set the inputs.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Read') and resource (agreement history, via the tool name), and states what the operation returns: edit reasons, authors, and exact snapshots. It implicitly separates itself from read_agreement (current state) by focusing on historical edits, but never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly.

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?

'Follow next_offset to earlier edits' gives an implied traversal recipe for paginating backwards, but there is no statement of when to use this tool rather than read_agreement, read_agreement_discussion, or the listing tools. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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