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

Annotations already show readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: plans are immutable, results come newest-first, deleted-ticket revisions are retained, and the tickets:read permission is required. This is exactly the kind of contextual disclosure annotations alone do not provide.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The core behavior, ordering, deleted-history inclusion, pagination, and permission are all packed efficiently and front-loaded.

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?

For a paginated read-only history list without an output schema, the description covers the essential contract: what is returned, ordering, deletion behavior, authorization, and continuation. The only notable gap is that 'next_before_version' is referenced but not explicitly defined as the value to pass as before_version in the next request.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description needed to compensate for undocumented parameters. It does add pagination semantics via 'Continue with next_before_version' and clarifies that deleted-ticket history is included, but it does not explicitly map next_before_version to the before_version parameter, nor does it explain the limit parameter or the relationship between ticket_id and retained deleted history.

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 ('Read'), a clear resource ('immutable plan revisions'), and key scope details: newest-first ordering and retained deleted-ticket history. This distinguishes it from get_ticket_delivery_plan and save_ticket_delivery_plan without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool: reading historical plan revisions and deleted-ticket history, with pagination and required permission noted. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the read-only, history-focused wording makes the intended context clear against siblings like get_ticket_delivery_plan.

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