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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that: results are ordered newest-first and the default payload is truncated unless include=text is passed, which is a genuinely useful disclosure about response shape.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: scope and ordering come first, then the use case, then the opt-in flag. Every clause carries information the agent needs before calling.

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?

There is no output schema and five parameters, one required, so the description needs to carry the result semantics — it does so via ordering and the include flag. Minor gaps remain around pagination behavior for the before cursor and the expected id format, but nothing that would cause a miscall.

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 80% and the schema strings are terse ("text", "<= 100", "timestamp cursor"), so the description adds real meaning by explaining that agent filters the history and that include=text expands to full write-ups. It leaves limit and before to the schema, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

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 names the resource precisely (past analyses of one autopilot) and adds the ordering contract (newest first) and a filter dimension (agent). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from history-oriented siblings such as list_deep_analyses or get_deep_analysis, so the agent must infer the scope difference.

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?

"use to explain why the autopilot did what it did" gives a clear motivating scenario for reaching for this tool. There is no explicit exclusion or named alternative for when a different analysis-listing tool would be preferred, so guidance stays at the implied level.

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