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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds practical behavior: the domain_not_monitored error, ISO-8601 and limit range constraints, and the API key requirement. It also explains severity classification logic and the sanitized detail payload, which are not available from annotations.

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 description is front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then caveats, and avoids unrelated details. It is slightly long but each sentence carries useful information; the only minor issue is a likely typo repeating 'get_drift_events' where get_domain_status was intended, but overall structure is clean.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description independently details event fields, severity levels, error behavior, parameter constraints, and authentication requirements. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool and what to expect, without needing to inspect other documentation.

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. It explains 'since (ISO-8601)' and 'limit (1..100)' for the optional parameters, and 'domain' is self-evident from the tool name and opening sentence. It doesn't provide exhaustive per-parameter schema details but covers the key constraints and formats.

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?

The description opens with 'Returns recent configuration drift events for a domain under monitoring by the authenticated account' and enumerates concrete types (TLS changes, DNSSEC, security headers, JS hosts, cookies), giving a specific verb+resource+scope. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_domain_status by positioning itself as the history counterpart to the current-state tool.

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 description states 'Use this when the user asks "what changed" on a domain, wants to audit recent posture shifts, or is diagnosing an unexpected issue' and pairs it with get_domain_status for current state. It also provides a 'Do NOT use' warning for unmonitored domains with the resulting domain_not_monitored error, covering both affirmative and negative usage conditions.

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