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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes real but modest behavioral context beyond that: the result set is ordered newest-first. It says nothing about pagination limits, rate limits, or the shape of history entries.

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 short sentences with zero waste; the purpose and ordering are front-loaded before the API mapping. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 rich annotations, a single fully documented parameter, and no output schema, the definition covers the essentials to call the tool. It is still incomplete about what a history entry contains and how paging terminates (page 1-100 implies 100 pages of results), which an agent would want for a discovery listing.

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 100% with a single optional 'page' parameter documented in the schema (1-100), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about paging behavior or whether omission returns page 1, so it does not improve on the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('get campaign history'), and adds scope ('Promo Board takeover and campaign history'). This clearly separates it from current-state siblings like promo_get_featured, promo_get_leaderboard, and promo_get_listing, which surface live data rather than history. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to prefer.

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 'Discovery:' prefix implies this is an exploratory/read-only lookup rather than an action, and the endpoint mapping ('Same data as GET .../history') hints at the data source. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no alternative tool is named. Given the promo sibling set has no other history tool, implied usage is adequate but thin.

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