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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond annotations by explaining the data lineage (where the audit entries come from, including the phone tool) and stating that the changes are reversible through rollback_config, which implies a non-destructive read view. This adds meaningful behavioral 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 compact at two sentences, begins with the core result details, and packs the source, the covered mutations, the relationship to the voice tool, and the rollback capability into one dense block. No filler or redundancy. Each 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?

Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to replicate return formats. It successfully covers the purpose, data fields, source store, provenance, possible callers, and even a related rollback sibling. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing: an agent would know what it reads, why it exists, and how to use it in context.

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 100%; both agent_id and limit are fully described in the input schema. The description does not add extra semantics for the parameters themselves, only reasserts 'recent' and 'limit' indirectly via 'recent' in the first sentence. Since the schema carries the full parameter burden, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens by stating the specific resource ('agent's recent config-change audit trail') and enumerates the exact fields returned (change_type, change_source, old/new value, timestamp). It places the tool at admin_change_history and connects it to the same record read by the admin_get_change_history voice tool, so the purpose is unambiguous even before looking at the schema.

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 clearly indicates this tool is appropriate for inspecting config-change history and explicitly explains that every mutation made through named tools (update_agent_config, configure_agent_business_rules, the admin call-in secretary, the dashboard) is logged here. It also notes that these changes are reversible with rollback_config, which gives the agent a reason to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as list_config_versions, but the context is strong enough for correct selection.

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