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

Annotations already cover readOnly/destructive/openWorld safety. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: auth requires a Cotlet API key with app access, and results are ordered newest first with date, author, and text fields. It still does not discuss pagination behavior or empty results.

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?

Front-loads purpose and return shape in three short sentences. However, 'newest first' is repeated in the first two sentences, which is minor redundancy.

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 simple read-only history tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, usage, return fields, ordering, and auth requirements. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly appears to be 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%: both tenant_id and limit are described in the schema. The description implies the tool is scoped to one tenant but adds no parameter format or limit semantics beyond what the schema already supplies, so 3 is the baseline.

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 History/Notes entries of one tenant'), plus ordering and returned fields (date, author, text). Distinguishes a read from the write sibling by framing it as reading 'before you write to the tenant.'

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use: read the tenant's notes before writing. It does not explicitly name the alternative write tool (e.g., add_history_note) or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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