histor_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the response is signed, what each returned element is (observation status, since-when, earlier sets, WARDEN matches, advisory classifier verdict), and critically sets expectations with 'one model's opinion, not a log label' and 'Says what was advertised, never that a server is safe.' It omits permission/auth or rate-limit behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The response shape is front-loaded ('Send ... Returns, signed: ...') and each sentence adds content rather than padding. It is dense with domain jargon (MTL/1, WARDEN, HISTOR) but not wasteful, and the caveats are appropriately placed at the end.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by enumerating what comes back, including the signed-history components. For a flexible-arity lookup tool with no required parameters, this is nearly complete; only the sibling-routing and auth/limit context are missing.

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 100% and there are no required parameters, so the schema already documents name, tools, endpoint, contribute, and toolSetDigest. The description reinforces the alternate input forms (endpoint/registry name vs tools/list vs digest) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 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?

The description states a concrete operation: send an MCP endpoint/registry name plus a tools/list (or its digest), and get back HISTOR's recorded history for that set. That is a specific verb-plus-resource, clearly a lookup/verification tool. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling tools histor_changes or histor_server, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 implied by the input contract ('Send an MCP endpoint ... and the tools/list you received, or its MTL/1 digest'), which tells the agent when the tool is applicable. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, and no comparison against histor_changes or histor_server to route the agent between them.

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