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

The description adds output-field disclosure (what the list exposes), which goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, default sorting, or response envelope, which are relevant for a list endpoint. Given annotations already declare readOnlyHint, the description provides some behavioral context but lacks richness.

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 two short, informative sentences: the first states the action, the second lists the returned fields. Every word earns its place; it is front-loaded and efficient with no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only list operation with 8 optional, well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and output content. It does not mention response format or sorting, but these are not critical given the schema defaults and readOnlyHint. Missing details like pagination limits are partially covered by the schema's page/size defaults, so the tool is sufficiently complete 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only mentions output fields. This is acceptable since the schema documents each filter, but the description adds no extra parameter-value guidance.

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 'List policy execution history' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates the fields shown (trace ID, group, version, status, match result, latency). This avoids tautology and provides precise scope, distinguishing it from get/provenance/replay tools without needing to open schemas.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lexq_history_get, lexq_history_stats, or lexq_logs_list. There is no mention of filters or scenarios for which listing is preferred, so the agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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