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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already declare this as a safe read operation. The description adds useful context: it reads an audit timeline, lists specific event types, and mentions it's for a single post. No contradiction with 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 a single, front-loaded sentence (20 words) that efficiently conveys purpose and event types. No superfluous information.

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?

While the description covers purpose and event types, it omits details about return format, pagination, or example usage. With no output schema, the description should provide more guidance on what the agent can expect. It is minimally complete for a simple read-only tool.

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 50% (descriptions for query and workspace_id only). The description does not explain the id parameter (the approval UUID) or brand_id, nor does it add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Given moderate coverage, the description fails to compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 clearly states the tool reads the approval audit timeline for one post, listing specific event types (submitted/approved/rejected/returned_to_draft/commented). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like aidelly_get_approvals and aidelly_action_post_approval by focusing on the event timeline rather than the approval summary or actions.

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 implies usage for reading event timelines but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like aidelly_get_approvals_id or aidelly_list_pending_approvals. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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