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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior — chronological ordering, per-entry contents, and the identity of the emitting component. It stops short of disclosing pagination or truncation behavior, which matters for a timeline that can be long.

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 sentences, both front-loaded and dense with actionable content. The ordering and field list come first, the sibling contrast lands last as a routing cue. Nothing is padding.

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 correctly takes on the job of describing the return shape and does it well. The remaining gap is the undocumented limit parameter and its truncation semantics, which an agent needs in order to trust the timeline it gets back.

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 carry the parameter burden — but it only implies project_id and says nothing about limit: no default, no maximum, no statement of whether a truncated timeline is silently cut or flagged. The one parameter an agent actually has to reason about is left entirely undocumented.

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 — the project's state timeline, ordered oldest first — and enumerates exactly what each entry carries (state transition, reason, originating platform component, request id). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_project, which 'shows the current state and nothing about how it got there.' An agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.

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?

It names the alternative (get_project) and the exact diagnostic condition that selects this tool: telling a slow analysis apart from one that failed and was retried. That is a concrete when-to-use rule plus an explicit when-not-to-use boundary, not an implied one.

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