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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description's contribution is the result ordering ('most recent first'); it says nothing about default page size, total counts, or whether results are team-scoped, though selfOnly and cursor in the schema hint at these.

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?

A single short sentence with the ordering guarantee front-loaded alongside the purpose. There is no filler and nothing to trim.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The only real gap is the absence of any routing hint toward get_tool_execution versus this list tool, which for a 48-sibling suite would be valuable.

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%, with all three optional parameters (limit, cursor, selfOnly) documented inline including the limit maximum and the cursor's origin. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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 ('List past tool executions') plus an ordering guarantee ('most recent first'), which the schema does not convey. It implicitly contrasts with the singular sibling get_tool_execution, but never names it, so the list-vs-get distinction is left for the agent to infer.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'past tool executions' hints at a history/audit use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer get_tool_execution for a single record. With 48 siblings including near-duplicates, that omission matters.

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