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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: results are ordered newest-first and include the actor and timestamp per change. It stops short of disclosing volume limits, pagination, or whether all transitions or only status changes are returned.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the ordering constraint and the audit-log framing are front-loaded and both earn their 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?

With no output schema, the description must carry return-value information, and it does so only partially — 'who moved it when, newest first' implies actor/timestamp/status fields but not the exact shape, entry count, or pagination. For a simple single-parameter read tool this is adequate but leaves gaps.

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?

Only one parameter (taskId) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no information about the parameter itself — no mention of what happens for an unknown task id or whether the id refers to a top-level task vs subtask. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 verb (get) and resource (status-change timeline for a task), and adds ordering and content semantics ('newest first', 'audit log of who moved it when'). It is clearly distinguishable from get_task or get_activity by the explicit 'status-change timeline' scoping, though it does not name any sibling directly.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name — you call this when you need the history of a task's status transitions — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of how it differs from get_activity, and no prerequisites (e.g., task must exist, permission required).

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