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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description adds real behavioral context on top: no snapshots (unlike get_event) and the cost/latency signal '1 request'. It stops short of stating rate limits or page-size behavior beyond the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the get_event contrast, then the restorable workflow. Every clause carries information, though the mid-sentence density on restorable makes it slightly harder to parse than it needs to be.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Given 13 parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers exactly the gaps an agent needs: the get_event distinction and the restore-point discovery workflow.

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 92% (high), so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema for the restorable parameter, tying it to restore_item semantics and to the item-deleted event, which the schema field only says 'just the events restore_item can restore'.

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 ('list ... history of a list, item, index or identity') including what the events contain (what happened, when, at which version). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_event by noting this one returns events 'without snapshots'.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use rule for the non-obvious case: restorable:true lists only events restore_item can go back to, presented as 'this is how to find restore points'. It also routes between this tool and get_event. It lacks any explicit when-not guidance (e.g., when to prefer list_items or search_items instead).

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