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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the data granularity (field-level changes) and the governance-access requirement, which is an auth constraint not present in any structured field. It stops short of describing pagination semantics, which the schema handles.

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 purpose and the access prerequisite are front-loaded, and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and the access gate. Return format is left unspecified, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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%, with limit, cursor, and proposalId each documented in the schema, including the 1-50 range and default. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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 ('Get field-level change history') plus the scope restriction ('for one proposal'), which is more precise than a generic 'get history'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-identical siblings like get_project_history, get_task_history, or get_change_request_history, but the resource noun does most of that work.

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 gives a precondition ('Requires governance access') but no when-to-use versus alternatives guidance and no exclusions. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than stated, so it lands at minimum-viable.

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