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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The only added context is the org-wide scope; nothing is said about pagination defaults, result volume, or what constitutes a 'history event'.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, the brevity comes from under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but the description omits what a history event is (status change, version, edit?), how it relates to get-agreement-history, and any hint at the available filtering/paging surface that dominates the schema.

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 single nested queryParams object has five sub-properties with clear schema descriptions for paging and date/agreement filters, so the schema largely carries this dimension. The description adds nothing about which filters matter or typical usage patterns.

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 (List) and resource (agreement history events) plus an org-wide scope. It doesn't name the sibling get-agreement-history, so the boundary between org-wide listing and single-agreement retrieval is only implied.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to get-agreement-history, which is the obvious alternative for a single agreement. The agent must infer routing from the sibling's name alone.

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