Get check history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The text usefully lists what each record contains, but says nothing about pagination behavior, retention windows, or result ordering that a caller investigating an incident would care about.

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: the first front-loads what is returned, the second states when to use it. No filler, no repetition of the title or name.

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 carries the return-value burden and does enumerate the record fields, which is genuinely helpful. It is still silent on result ordering and how the page/limit pair behaves across a large incident window, leaving a small gap for a 6-parameter history query.

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 67%: check_id, from, to and limit are documented in-schema, while page and status carry no description. The prose adds no filtering or paging semantics beyond the schema, so it neither compensates for those gaps nor extends what is already there — baseline 3 for this coverage level.

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 ('Get individual check results over time') and enumerates the payload (timestamps, status codes, response times, errors), which separates it from get_check (current state). It never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling aggregate tool get_check_stats, so it stops short of 5.

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?

'Use when investigating an incident or confirming a fix held' gives a concrete, actionable scenario for invoking it. It offers no exclusion or named alternative (e.g. use get_check_stats for trends), so it lacks the when-not half of a 5.

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