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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the scope is 'Own' history, latency is roughly 1 second, and client_id must never be passed. No contradiction with 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 short and front-loaded with the endpoint and purpose. Every clause adds value: scope, use case, latency, and a critical safety warning. There is no redundant filler.

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?

The core purpose is clear, and the ownership and safety constraints are helpful. However, since there is no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description leaves pagination behavior and the exact response shape under-explained for an agent that needs to page through history.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain 'limit' or 'last_id' or how pagination works. The parameter names hint at pagination, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's raw integer bounds.

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 identifies the tool as a KYT history lookup: 'Own KYT history plus quote fields. Use to find a past address check.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kyt_check, kyt_quote, and kyt_check_get, which are about creating, quoting, or fetching individual checks rather than browsing 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?

It gives explicit use context: use this to find a past address check. It also adds a safety constraint with 'Never pass client_id,' but it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full guidance.

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