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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context beyond them—the required history:read scope on the verified key, no wallet selector or signing, and the storage-admission prerequisite. These are meaningful auth and prerequisite disclosures, though the phrasing is cryptic rather than plain.

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?

Three sentences with the operative clause front-loaded and little outright waste. But the density is achieved through opaque terminology ("current-store," "storage admission") rather than clarity, so it is terse without being readily parseable.

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?

With no output schema, no schema parameter descriptions, and annotations covering only the safety profile, the description should carry more. It covers auth prerequisites but omits any explanation of the two required params or what an export returns, leaving significant gaps for an agent to call it 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 description coverage is 0% and both parameters (id, requestId) are undocumented in the schema, yet the description explains neither—it never mentions what id or requestId identify, nor their relationship. With two required, undescribed params, the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

The description identifies an "Owner-private current-store read using the verified key's explicit history:read scope," which conveys that it reads the owner's own record under a specific scope. However, the title says "Export" while the body says "read," and the jargon ("current-store," "storage admission") obscures the core action, leaving it unclear how this differs from siblings like history_export or history_owned_read.

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?

It gives partial when-not guidance by stating that "Visibility, defaults and erasure require the interactive web session" and that no wallet selector or signing is used, which routes some cases away. But it never names or distinguishes the closely related sibling tools (history_export, history_owned_read, history_private_jobs_export), so the agent must infer which export variant to pick.

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