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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it triggers scans, or any side effects. The description only states a domain fact, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior.

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 very short, which is concise, but it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence. It sacrifices necessary semantics—such as the operation type and parameters—to the point of under-specification. Brevity is present but at the expense of clarity.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and incomplete parameter descriptions, the description should provide more context about return values and usage. It only covers the basic domain ('drift events') and leaves the agent without enough information to invoke the tool effectively.

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 description does not mention either parameter (limit, entity_id). The schema provides only a minimal 'Optional' description for entity_id and no description for limit. With schema coverage at 50%, the description should compensate, but it adds no parameter meaning at all.

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 the resource ('history of all drift events') but lacks an explicit verb like 'List' or 'Retrieve.' It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as drift_status or full_drift_scan, which also relate to drift state. The phrase is clear about the data domain but not the operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention whether it is for auditing past events, nor does it suggest any context for using limit or entity_id. No exclusions or alternative tool references are present.

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