Get management history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the pagination behavior ('follow response pagination to read older records'), which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about record ordering, retention, or result volume.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose before filter details and ending with the pagination instruction. The parenthetical value list is long but each item earns its place as an enumeration of accepted kinds.

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 history tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential call mechanics: filter modes, valid subject_kind values, the subject_key constraint, and pagination traversal. It omits what a record actually contains or how results are ordered, which are secondary for a listing tool.

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 only 25% (just orderNo), so the description carries real weight: it enumerates the accepted subject_kind values and, crucially, states that subject_key requires exactly one kind — a coupling constraint absent from the schema. It also clarifies that the two filter families are alternatives rather than combinable, which adds meaning beyond the raw types.

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 names a specific verb and resource (get management/activity history) and scopes it to tenant management operations, which separates it from siblings like get_service_history or get_login_history. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

It clarifies that the two filter modes are optional and mutually exclusive in structure (exact orderNo, or subject_kind/subject_key), and instructs the agent to follow response pagination. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over get_service_history, list_network_operations, or get_dns_zone_history, so routing is only implied.

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