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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain behavior by explaining that only verified listings count toward accuracy, though it does not mention pagination, limit behavior, or authorization needs.

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 compact and front-loaded, with no wasted wording. Both sentences provide relevant information: one identifies the resource, and the other clarifies an accuracy rule.

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 does reasonably well by naming the history metrics returned: listings found, verified, accurate, and inaccurate. However, it omits parameter semantics, especially limit, and does not clarify pagination or ordering for a history-listing tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It implies that a profile is involved, but it does not explain profile_id or describe what limit controls, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 clearly: citation scan history for a profile, including the types of listing outcomes returned. It is specific enough to identify the tool, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling request_citation_scan tool.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus request_citation_scan, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'scan history' implies that this is for retrieval of past scans, but that inference is left to the agent.

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