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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds beyond annotations by disclosing the bounded result set ('last 10 jobs') and the included fields ('status, timestamps, and results'). 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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the first states the operation and resource, the second specifies the output. Everything included earns its place, and nothing redundant repeats annotation data.

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 single-parameter read-only query with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns, including the result limit and fields. Minor ambiguity about what counts as 'scheduled' is acceptable and does not impede correct usage.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does so by linking automationId to 'a scheduled automation' and explaining what the returned history contains, making the parameter's role clear despite the bare schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('job execution history'), and scope ('for a scheduled automation'), and specifies the output ('last 10 jobs with status, timestamps, and results'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_automations or get_workflow_stats.

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 makes the tool's context clear: use it when you need the recent execution history of a specific scheduled automation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended use case is unambiguous against the sibling list.

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