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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the shape of the result set (full detail, complete score history, corroboration, lifecycle), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read-only nature, authentication, or result size/pagination expectations.

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 with the core capability front-loaded and the sequencing advice following. The 'Ids come from list_signals' sentence slightly restates the earlier reference to list_signals, a small redundancy.

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 no annotations, so the description must convey the return value, which it does reasonably ('full detail and complete score history', corroboration, lifecycle stage). Missing only operational details like pagination or latency for a history-fetching call.

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% and the single id parameter already carries a format example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description repeats the example ids and adds provenance ('Ids come from list_signals'), which is mildly useful but mostly redundant with the schema.

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 ('Full detail and complete score history for one topic, by id') and even enumerates what the detail contains: score history, cross-source corroboration, lifecycle stage. It does not directly differentiate itself from the sibling get_entity, so it falls short of a 5 despite otherwise being very clear.

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 explicit sequencing ('Call this after list_signals') and explains the motivation ('to see how a specific signal has moved over time'). However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this over get_entity, so the alternative-selection guidance is partial.

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