validation_history

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that buffer holds 500 records and older entries are automatically overwritten, providing valuable behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Three sentences with no waste: first sentence states purpose and ordering, second lists return fields, third explains pagination. Front-loaded with key action.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (pagination, no output schema), the description covers return fields, pagination details, and buffer limit. Annotations handle safety. Complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 descriptions already cover limit and offset fully (100% coverage). The description reiterates defaults and max but adds minimal new meaning (e.g., offset for skipping from most recent). 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?

The description clearly states the tool queries recent validation results with pagination, returns newest first, and lists specific fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools (chat, health, providers, stats) by focusing on validation history.

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?

Explicitly mentions using limit and offset for pagination, default 20, max 100. Does not state when not to use, but sibling tools are unrelated, so guidance is sufficient.

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