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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by scoping the return content (history only, no proposal body or vote tallies) and disambiguating the 'CIP' namespace. It stops short of describing pagination or ordering guarantees for the timeline.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it returns, when to use it, and what it is not — the routing exclusions are front-loaded rather than buried. No filler.

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?

Single required param, full schema coverage, no output schema — the description already conveys the return content (dated from->to transitions) and the scope boundaries, which is everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100% and the schema itself supplies ID format examples ("0001", "CIP-0042", "PR-0117"). The description adds nothing about the id parameter beyond what the schema already documents, so 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 (status-transition timeline of a single CIP) and illustrates the output shape (Draft->Review->Final). It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_cip and get_cip_votes, so an agent can separate the three without opening schemas.

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 an explicit trigger ('how/when did CIP-X move through governance' questions) and names the alternatives to use instead for other needs (get_cip for the body, get_cip_votes for tallies). Ecosystem scoping (Canton only, not Cardano) removes a realistic collision.

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