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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: missing predecessors are surfaced explicitly, pagination cursor behavior, and an auth requirement ('Requires an agent token') that the schema presents as optional. This is genuinely additive 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?

Four compact sentences that front-load the resource and content, then add the edge-case, pagination, and auth notes. Every sentence carries information; only minor: 'Missing predecessors stay explicit' is slightly abrupt phrasing.

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 read-only, no-output-schema tool with rich annotations, the description covers content, edge case (missing predecessors), pagination, and auth. The main gap is that it doesn't clarify the relationship with sibling read tools, so an agent must infer which read to use.

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 75% and the schema documents limit, offset, and api_key thoroughly, including defaults and snapshot behavior. The description's 'Follow pagination.next_offset' adds usage semantics for pagination, but record_id lacks a pattern description in the description itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Read') and resource ('change history'), and enumerates what the history contains (before/after revisions, reasons, sources, authors, dates). It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like read_information or read_vote_history, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 guidance on when to use this vs read_information, list_contributions, or get_agent_changes. The only conditional hint is 'Follow pagination.next_offset,' which is a usage mechanic, not a when-to-use rule.

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