get_tech_trust_history

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

With no annotations, the description discloses 'Read-only', 'Returns paginated JSON array with pagination.hasMore flag', and mentions completion timestamps. This provides sufficient behavioral transparency for a read-only history tool.

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 description is three sentences, front-loading the main purpose, then usage context, then additional details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 pagination and sibling context, the description covers key aspects: pagination flag, drill-down capability, and what each run contains. It could mention ordering but overall complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add extra parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides (defaults, max, source).

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 'Get paginated history of Tech & Trust monitoring runs' with specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the domain (Tech & Trust) and the full snapshot nature, and references a related detail tool.

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?

The description explains when to use: 'compare changes over time' and directs to get_tech_trust_run_detail for specific run data. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear.

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