history_mcptoken

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return content (LogEntry records with actor, change, timestamp) and 'Get' implies a read, but says nothing about ordering, pagination beyond the schema's limit, or required permissions.

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 operation and resource, and every clause earns its place by naming the record type and the fields surfaced.

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 read-only lookup with a 100%-covered two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns. Ordering and pagination behavior are the only minor gaps.

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 100% with only two parameters, both fully described in the schema (id target, limit with default 50). The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Get the change history (LogEntry records) for a MCP Token instance', with the second sentence clarifying the content is who/what/when. This cleanly separates it from get_mcptoken (current state) via the resource noun, though it never explicitly contrasts with the sibling set.

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?

Usage is only implied: an audit/history lookup is self-evident from 'change history' and 'who made what changes and when', but there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_mcptoken or related_mcptoken, nor any prerequisites.

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