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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses the read-only nature (history/chain), the wallet-signature auth flow, the prerequisite prepare step, and that the nonce is single-use. It does not spell out permissions or error behavior, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and output shape, then lists args compactly. Every line earns its place; the arg list is slightly structural rather than prose, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still hints at them. Combined with the fully documented auth flow and prerequisite, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: all five required params are documented, including their provenance (timestamp and nonce from memory_prepare; signature over message_to_sign; memory_id is any version's UUID). This fully fills the schema gap.

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 operation on a specific resource: return the full version chain for a memory, ordered oldest first. It even names the returned fields (valid_from / valid_until / superseded_by), so an agent can distinguish this from memory_get (single version) without opening a schema.

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?

"Works from any version's id" and "Call memory_prepare with operation 'history' first" give clear prerequisite and context guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it doesn't reach the top band.

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