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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows the operation is safe and non-mutating. The description adds no behavioral nuance beyond that—no pagination, ordering, or result-scoping details—but it also does not contradict the annotations, making this adequate rather than informative.

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 a single sentence with no filler, and the core action and object are front-loaded. It is terse, but every word 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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the definition is nearly sufficient: parameter provenance is covered by the schema and safety is covered by annotations. It does not explain the meaning or shape of 'send history', but the output schema handles return structure, so no critical call-time information is missing.

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%, and the id parameter is already documented as originating from list_automations, so the schema carries the semantic burden. The description only repeats 'automation' without adding format, constraints, or usage nuances, so the baseline of 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?

The description identifies a specific verb ('get') and resource ('send history for an automation'), making it possible to distinguish from generic sibling getters like get_report or get_widget_data. However, it essentially restates the title and adds no detail about what the send history contains, so it falls just short of a fully differentiating definition.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_automations or get_widget_data, and no exclusions or negative use cases are stated. The intended context must be inferred from the tool name rather than explained in the description.

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