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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, yet the description adds genuine behavioral context: an explicit history:read scope requirement, that it reads the 'current store' with bounded filters/keysets, that missing membership/claims stay explicit rather than silently empty, and that no mutation authority exists. This is real value beyond the annotations, though the phrasing is cryptic.

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 text is terse but telegraphic and jargon-heavy ('owner-private v2 contract', 'bounded filters/keysets', 'stay explicit'), and it front-loads an unresolvable endpoint reference instead of the core purpose. Compactness here reflects under-specification rather than deliberate concision.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description would need to carry more return-shape information, and it only partially does (truncation/continuation for export, explicit missing membership). For a security-scoped read tool acknowledged as complex, the reliance on an external '/api/me/asks' contract leaves an agent without a self-contained picture.

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?

With zero parameters the baseline would be 4, but the description references 'bounded filters/keysets' that the empty schema does not expose, creating a mismatch an agent must reconcile. The schema provides no coverage to clarify, so the description neither compensates nor avoids confusion.

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 title 'Read your owned history' plus the read verb identify this as a history-read operation, and the exclusions ('No research, signer, payment, public-owner selector or mutation authority') carve out scope relative to siblings. But 'Same owner-private v2 contract as /api/me/asks' points to an external endpoint an agent cannot resolve, and the resource being read (history of what?) is never stated plainly. The purpose is only inferable.

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?

'Explicit history:read required' states a prerequisite, and the contrast with export ('Export has explicit truncation/continuation') implicitly frames the non-export case. However, nothing routes the agent among the many nearby siblings (history_read, history_private_jobs_list, history_export), so when-to-use is left to inference.

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