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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, which already cover the safety profile), the description discloses ordering (newest first), the returned evidence bundle composition (record + RFC 9162 inclusion proof + signed tree head + keyring), and a semantic caveat about what 'history' means. That is meaningful added context for a read tool.

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-loaded with the core purpose, and the parenthetical detail on the evidence bundle is dense but information-bearing. It is a single long run-on paragraph rather than structured lines, so it is efficient but not maximally scannable.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so (changes list plus evidence bundle), and annotations cover safety. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether repeated calls can page beyond the limit and how server_id relates to the inputs of the sibling verification tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: `limit` is bounded explicitly as 1-50 with newest-first truncation semantics, and server_id is illustrated with a concrete registry-id example establishing its format. It doesn't explain optionality/default behavior (limit defaults to 10) explicitly, keeping it from a 5.

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+resource ('Signed tool-list history of one MCP server'), the source of truth (LEGION), the identifier format for server_id ('xyz.signomy/civitae'), ordering (newest first), and scope cap (1-50). It distinguishes itself from sibling verify_evidence_bundle by positioning that tool as the downstream verifier of the bundle this one returns.

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 clear interpretive context ('A change is not a fault; history = what LEGION observed, not what other clients see') and names verify_evidence_bundle as the tool that checks the returned bundle offline, effectively routing the agent. It stops short of explicitly stating when to prefer this over check_mcp_server or verify_mcp_server.

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