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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: snapshots are written on every policy update, and the list is in revision order with total_snapshots, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't mention pagination or response format details, but with zero parameters and a simple list operation, this is minor.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The main action and key differentiator (revision order vs current) are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with annotations covering safety, the description is complete: it states the purpose, the result (total_snapshots), and the relationship to get_execution_policy. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately avoids adding unnecessary parameter guidance since there is nothing to clarify.

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 states a specific action (list), resource (persisted execution-policy snapshots), and provides key attributes (revision order, total_snapshots). It clearly differentiates from get_execution_policy by noting that function returns only the current one, so an agent can immediately distinguish this tool's role.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: for replay and audit inspection of the lineage trail, and contrasts it with get_execution_policy which returns only the current snapshot. This gives clear selection criteria and identifies the alternative.

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