history

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: results are ordered oldest-to-newest, and data is read from a local file at <state dir>/history.jsonl. It does not say whether history is truncated or session-scoped, so it sits at an adequate 3.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the result set and its ordering, with the storage location trailing as supporting detail. Nothing redundant.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to convey scope and the parameter's effect, which it does. The remaining gap is whether history is bounded (e.g., only this session or the whole state file), which an agent could reasonably want.

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 0% and the single `limit` parameter has no description in the schema beyond a default of 20. The description compensates by defining what `limit` controls (how many of the most recent results are returned) and by clarifying the resulting ordering ('newest last'), which is meaning the schema does not carry.

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 the specific resource (posting results) and the exact selection rule ('the last `limit` results, newest last'), so an agent knows it is a retrieval of past posting attempts. It never mentions `status` or `check_accounts`, so sibling differentiation is only implicit, which keeps it out of the 5 tier.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus `status` (current state) or `check_accounts`, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The use case (reviewing recent posting outcomes) must be inferred from the phrase 'posting results'.

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