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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: newest-first ordering, pagination ('next_offset pages on'), and the merged-entry key behavior. Note the response token 'next_offset' is referenced but absent from the schema, which is useful output context.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by scope/edge-case detail. Nearly no waste, though the parenthetical 'next_offset pages on' is slightly cryptic without schema support.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the read-only nature is covered by annotations. However, the undocumented limit/offset parameters and the absence of any when-to-use framing leave the definition only minimally complete for a paginated history 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 only 33%: 'entry' is documented, but 'limit' and 'offset' have no description anywhere. The description does not compensate for those gaps (e.g., paging semantics, defaults, max values), leaving half the parameters ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: an entry's public edit history, newest first. It distinguishes itself from get_entry/get_entry_admin by specifying 'public' history, and it handles the merged-entry edge case. Clear, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to avoid.

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 explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to alternatives (e.g., get_entry_admin for admin history). Usage is implied by the resource name, and the merged-entry note is a partial hint, but nothing tells the agent which of get_entry, get_entry_admin, or this tool to pick.

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