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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key traits: 'Read-only from the persisted event ledger (no recompute)' and 'History starts at the first persisted event of this generation.' That is genuinely useful behavioral context. It omits permissions, latency, and ordering trade-offs beyond newest-first, so not a 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?

The purpose is front-loaded, but it then collapses into a dense, jargon-heavy run-on string with backtick field lists that is hard to parse. Every element is arguably informative, but the lack of paragraphing or ordering hurts readability.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately spends its space documenting the return shape (episodes, targets, chain, signals, missing points, signal_gaps, sign/position). It is largely complete for an agent to interpret the result. A modest gap remains around how `limit` interacts with the two returned collections.

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 67% and the description adds essentially no parameter guidance — it never mentions `limit`, `symbol`, or `timeframe`. The schema documents symbol, timeframe enum, and limit bounds/default, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description does nothing to compensate for the undocumented fraction.

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-equivalent and resource: 'Price-axis EPISODE history' with two named collections (`episodes`, `signal_gaps`). It goes well beyond restating the name by describing the conceptual content (target selections, chains, signals, missing points). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_signals or get_trigger_history, which keeps it at 4.

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?

The framing question ('where did I buy/sell last time...') implies when the tool is useful, giving implied usage context. However, it never states when to use this versus the many sibling read tools (get_signals, get_trigger_history, get_state_timeline), and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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