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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: ordering (newest first) and the scope (last N analysis cycles). This adds valuable context without contradicting the annotations.

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 two sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the core function and ordering, and the second gives a concrete use case. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a read-only tool with two simple parameters, the description is largely complete. It conveys the per-category score history scope and ordering. However, since there is no output schema, the description might have clarified the exact return structure (e.g., what categories include), but it is not critically missing for successful invocation.

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?

Both parameters (id, limit) are fully described in the schema (coverage 100%), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description does not add any extra parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'per-category score history for an identity' with a specific scope ('last N analysis cycles, newest first'). It also provides a use case ('spotting whether a recent analyzer change moved scores'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_identity or get_identity_analysis.

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 gives a clear context for when to use the tool ('useful for spotting whether a recent analyzer change moved scores'), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use conditions. It implies usage but lacks explicit exclusions, fitting the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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