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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: counts are (hostname, role) pairs and can double-count; pre-2026-08-15 unresolvable hosts were recorded as 'down'; the series starts on 2026-07-21; 'from' is clamped; and the data is keyless-cacheable. This goes well beyond the read-only hint and protects against misinterpretation.

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 front-loaded with a one-line summary and then expands into necessary caveats and temporal boundaries. Every sentence adds useful information, though a few implementation details ('derived from the temporal verdict table in one windowed pass') are slightly beyond what an agent strictly needs.

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 there is no output schema, the description does a good job explaining the returned data's semantics: daily granularity, verdict counting, pairing behavior, historical caveats, and date clamping. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact response shape or verdict values, but for a simple two-parameter history tool it is substantially complete.

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%, and the schema already documents defaults, inclusivity, UTC format, and clamping. The description repeats the clamp behavior but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 with a specific verb+resource ('Get the network verdict history') and then defines the exact scope: host verdict mix per UTC day, counted by verdict. The resource is clearly distinct from sibling history tools like get_participant_history or get_doctype_stats_history, so an agent can tell where it belongs.

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 implies when to use it — when you need host verdict mix over time — but it never states this explicitly nor names alternatives such as get_network_summary. It provides clear context about data granularity but no direct when/when-not guidance, so it stays at the implied-usage level.

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