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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description doesn't repeat that. Instead it adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: pages may be empty or short while more results exist, and the agent must keep following pagination.nextCursor until pagination.hasMore is false. That is exactly the kind of pagination nuance an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then provenance, then the continuation rule. No filler and no restatement of the title or annotations.

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, the description compensates by naming the response fields that matter for continuation (pagination.nextCursor, pagination.hasMore) and warning about short/empty pages. The remaining gap is the unresolved overlap with get_entry_changes, which matters given the near-identical sibling 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 100%, so 'entryId', 'field', 'limit', 'cursor', and 'importance' are already fully documented with enums and ranges. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond naming pagination.nextCursor as the source of the cursor, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get one entry's typed update history') and adds an anchoring reference ('Mirrors the REST entry-updates endpoint'). However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similarly named sibling get_entry_changes, leaving the agent to guess which one returns 'updates' vs 'changes'.

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?

Usage is only implied: the entryId requirement and the 'field'/'importance' filters suggest this is for inspecting a single entry's history. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over get_entry_changes or get_entry, which is the main ambiguity an agent faces here.

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