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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by identifying the PLC audit log as the source and listing the categories of history returned.

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 front-load the tool's purpose, scope, and input. Every phrase carries useful information, and there is no filler.

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 read-only annotations, a complete input schema, and an output schema present, the description provides everything needed to call the tool correctly. It covers the data source, returned history categories, account-type restriction, and accepted input forms.

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 100%, and the one parameter is fully described in the schema. The description says 'Input is a handle or DID,' which is essentially the same information, so it adds little beyond the schema baseline.

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+resource (account history) and enumerates the exact contents: handle changes, PDS migrations, signing-key rotations, and creation time. It also scopes the tool to did:plc accounts, which helps distinguish it from DID-document or resolver siblings.

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?

Clearly establishes when the tool applies via 'did:plc accounts only' and explicitly excludes did:web accounts. It does not name an alternative sibling tool, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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