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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered structurally. The description adds 'field-level change history' scope, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination behavior or what a revision record contains. With annotations carrying safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the sibling routing immediately after it.

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 read-only history tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient. It could optionally note pagination/return shape, but no output schema exists and the essential call guidance is present.

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 100%, so limit, cursor and projectId are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, syntax or default details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('field-level change history for one project'), and explicitly contrasts with get_project for current state. An agent can distinguish it from get_project and from other *_history siblings by resource without opening a schema.

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?

'PREFER get_project for current state' gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use in a broader sense (e.g. vs other history tools), so it is clear context without full exclusion coverage.

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