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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the identity precondition ('Requires the connected identity') and the pagination behavior. It still omits return shape and page size, but the auth requirement is exactly the kind of operational fact that earns credit.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; purpose and the identity precondition are front-loaded. It is efficient, though almost austere given the schema gaps it leaves uncovered.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values but does not describe what a contribution record or 'resolution state' contains, nor ordering. Purpose, scope, auth, and pagination are covered, which is the minimum viable set for this read tool.

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 (cursor) at 0% schema description coverage, so the description should compensate. Mentioning 'with pagination' signals what cursor is for, but the description never explains the cursor semantics, default, or paging behavior, leaving the mapping only partially recovered.

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) and resource (own attributed contribution history and resolution state), and the 'own' scoping distinguishes it from broader siblings like get_corrections and get_observation_history. It does not, however, name those siblings explicitly to route the agent.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'own' scoping and the read framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. The agent must infer that this is the personal-history view versus the other history tools.

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