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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: a hard five-revision retention limit, a PII warning ('may contain the sender's personal content'), and an explicit data exclusion ('Game HTML is excluded'). It stops short of describing failure modes for an invalid or expired token.

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?

Three tight sentences that are front-loaded with what is returned, then the retention limit, then data caveats. Every sentence carries information an agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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 convey the return shape, and it does so reasonably: last five revisions, revision metadata contents, and excluded HTML. Safety and idempotency are covered by annotations, so the main residual gap is error/permission behavior for an invalid token.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It ties the parameter to the tool ('for the supplied management token') but adds no meaning beyond that — no format, source, or validity constraints, which the schema only encodes as a regex pattern.

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 and resource: returns the last five retained revisions of a private draft, keyed by management token. The scope (five retained revisions) is concrete, though it never names a sibling tool or explains how it differs from get_gift or revise_custom_game. Note the tool name says 'gift_history' while the description talks about a 'draft', a mismatch an agent must resolve from the title.

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 phrase 'for the supplied management token' implies the prerequisite but gives no when-to-use condition, no when-not-to-use, and no alternative such as get_gift or revise_custom_game. The agent must infer that this tool is for auditing prior draft revisions.

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