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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the purpose; it does not mention pagination, filtering, data scope, or any access requirements. No contradiction exists, but there is also no added transparency.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple read operation and gets straight to the point.

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 simple read-only nature, full schema coverage, and an output schema, this is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any usage guidance, behavioral nuance, or relationship to sibling operations, so an agent receives only the bare minimum needed to understand the tool's purpose.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the single 'id' parameter and even notes it comes from list_automations. The description itself adds no parameter information, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get send history for an automation.' This is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_email_logs or get_widget_data. The title and description are nearly identical, which slightly reduces the added clarity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related tools like list_automations for obtaining the ID. Usage is only implied by the purpose statement itself, not explicitly explained.

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