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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the newest-first ordering and notes that a human-readable summary is returned in a field called `say`, which is useful but cryptic and unexplained.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The ordering fact comes early. The final sentence referencing `say` is terse to the point of being opaque, but nothing is wasted.

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 no-output-schema, zero-coverage-parameter tool, the description omits any explanation of `status`, any usage context, and any indication of what fields the action records contain. It is thinner than the tool's surface area warrants.

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% for both parameters, so the description carries the burden. It explains only `id` ("id reads one") and says nothing about `status`, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description. It partially compensates but not adequately.

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 echoes the title ("What has been done for the person") and adds that it is "a record of every action, newest first," which clarifies the resource is a historical log with a defined sort order. However, it never states plainly that this is a listing/read operation distinct from siblings like get_tracker or get_stats, and "actions" is left ambiguous.

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?

"id reads one" is the only routing hint, implying the id parameter fetches a single record versus the list. There is no guidance on when to use this over other read tools (about_job_spotter, get_tracker), and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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