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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a read-only operation, and the description is consistent with that. It transparently describes the default filtering of resolved events, the grouping behavior, and the precondition of project context. No contradiction exists.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by the key filtering behavior and the alternative tool. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool returns (grouped endpoints with drift items, duration, contract version) and when to use it. It does not fully describe the output shape, but the absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit grouping description. Details like pagination or sorting are not mentioned, but they are not essential for basic use.

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%, and the parameter descriptions add useful meaning beyond the raw schema: status values ('all' or 'resolved') and their effect on closed events, severity filtering, the lookback range (1-30), and environment/project GUID semantics. The descriptions are terse but sufficient for correct use.

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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('endpoints of a project whose live responses drift from their contract'), and the grouping/returned details ('grouped by endpoint with the drift items, how long it has lasted and the contract version'). It also distinguishes itself from get_schema_drift_report by pointing to that tool for a single monitor's history.

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 explicit behavioral guidance: resolved events are excluded unless requested, and it directs the agent to get_schema_drift_report for one monitor's history. It also notes that project context is required. It does not explicitly contrast with get_contract_drift, but the main alternative is covered.

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