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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail about the result shape (newest first, actor attribution, before → after values), but says nothing about the limit cap or pagination behavior that a caller would care about.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (ordering, actor types, before → after) carries information. The trailing ellipsis after 'AI…' is slightly loose but harmless.

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 usefully sketches the returned fields, which is a real contribution. However, it leaves the two required parameters (table, record_id) unexplained and omits limit/default behavior, so an agent still lacks enough to invoke it confidently.

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 only 33%: table and record_id have no descriptions at all, and the description does not compensate by explaining what 'table' identifies or what form record_id takes (integer or string). Only the limit parameter is documented, and even that lives in the schema rather than the description.

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 names the specific resource (a record's change history) and its ordering (newest first), giving an agent a clear picture of what it retrieves. It does not name or differentiate itself from sibling tools like compare_record or open_record, which also operate on records, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as compare_record, open_record, or workspace_activity, nor any stated prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the purpose statement.

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