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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structure. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — visibility across any list the caller can open, including org-level lists — but says nothing about how revisions are surfaced, ordering, or retention, which the annotations do not cover.

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 zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the scope caveat follows immediately. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 burden of describing what a revision looks like (who changed which cell, when, old vs new value) and it does not. For a simple, annotated read tool this is adequate but leaves the return shape to inference.

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%: rowId, limit (1-50, default 20) and cursor pagination are all documented in the schema itself. The description's "one list row" echoes rowId but adds no format or syntax detail, 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 (get), resource (change history) and granularity (cell-level) scoped to one list row, which no sibling duplicates — the other *_history tools cover tasks, documents, projects, issues and proposals. It is clear and unambiguous, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings to help the agent route.

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?

"Available for rows in any list the caller can open, including organization-level lists" sets the access scope but is a permission statement, not usage guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use or alternative named; the intent (call this to inspect a row's revision log) is only implied.

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