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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds useful scope context (up to 30 days, daily results with reachability and response time), but does not mention edge cases like unknown servers or what happens beyond the 30-day window.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the purpose, data fields, and time bound. There is no wasted text.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, granularity, returned fields, and a key limit. It lacks explicit return-shape or error-handling detail, but annotations and schema cover most remaining needs.

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 50%: 'name' is documented as Registry name, but 'days' lacks a schema description. The description compensates partially by stating the 'up to 30 days' limit, though it does not explain defaults or units beyond that.

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 a specific verb and resource ('get server history') and clarifies the payload as daily check results with reachable status and response time. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_server or get_changes.

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 alternatives such as get_server or get_changes. Usage is only implied by the mention of daily check results for one server.

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