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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose ordering ('oldest first') and the shape of each returned record, which is useful. It says nothing about volume, pagination, or limits on how many historical states are returned, which is the main risk for a history endpoint with no output schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the returned content and followed immediately by the routing rule. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the ordering guarantee is placed where it is read first.

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 and no annotations, the description usefully compensates by enumerating what each recorded state contains and in what order, which an agent needs to interpret the result. The remaining gap is pagination or depth of history, which matters for a potentially long event stream.

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 both parameters are already documented; the description only reinforces that this is a single prop's history and that prop_id originates from list_props, which the schema already states. There is no added semantics for user_request in the description, so 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 resource and return set: 'Every recorded state of one prop, oldest first', enumerating line moves, price moves and suspensions plus the move summary. It is clearly distinguishable from list_props and line_move, which the description names as the sources of the open/current view rather than the history.

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?

Explicitly sequences usage: 'Use it after list_props or line_move' establishes the prerequisite call that supplies prop_id and a summary view. It also frames when-not by contrast — 'when you need the full path, not just open and current' — routing the agent to the lighter siblings for the current state.

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