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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that — a hard 30-entry cap, newest-first ordering, and the per-entry fields (what/who/when). However, 'Pass a change id to undo to put the site back as it was before that change' is ambiguous and, read literally, implies a write capability that conflicts with the read-only 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?

Two short sentences, with the return-value summary front-loaded ahead of the secondary note. Nothing is padded. The second sentence is muddled in wording, but the overall length is appropriate for a one-parameter read tool.

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, the description usefully compensates by naming what each entry contains (what each did, who made it, when) plus the cap and ordering. Combined with read-only annotations and a fully documented optional token, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the ambiguous undo sentence leaves a gap.

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 100% and the single optional 'token' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline would be 3. The description instead introduces a 'change id' concept that exists in no parameter, which can mislead an agent into looking for or inventing an argument that the tool does not accept.

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 exactly what the tool returns: the last 30 changes to the site, newest first, with actor and timestamp. That is a concrete resource with scope and ordering, far beyond the bare name 'history'. It does not, however, name the sibling it must be distinguished from (wiki_history covers page-level history), so a reader must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied — the agent must infer that this is the tool for auditing recent site-wide changes. The second sentence gestures at a related action (undo), but it does not clearly say when to use history vs. undo vs. wiki_history, and the routing is ambiguous.

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