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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds real value beyond them: the 24-month cap, the fact results are aggregated across three status categories, and the VIP subscription requirement that gates invocation. It stops short of disclosing result granularity (monthly buckets?) or data freshness.

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 no filler; the capability and its bound come first and the access requirement last. Every clause contributes information.

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 should convey what an 'aggregate history' returns — period granularity, whether figures are counts or rates, and ordering. It covers the filters and the ceiling but leaves the response shape ambiguous, which matters for a data-retrieval tool.

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% across four parameters, so the description carries the burden. It names three of the four filters (visa, state, occupation) and hints at the fourth via 'up to 24 months', but supplies no formats — the 6-digit occupation pattern, the state/visa code conventions, and the default month count are all unstated.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') plus the resource ('aggregate submitted, invited and lodged history') and a bounded scope ('up to 24 months'). The word 'history' implicitly separates it from the sibling get_eoi_snapshot, but no sibling is named, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

It notes the filters are optional and adds the access precondition 'VIP required', which is genuinely useful context. However, it never says when to reach for this versus get_eoi_snapshot, get_latest_overview, or get_invitation_rounds, so the agent must guess between closely related siblings.

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