reports_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine semantic context beyond that: the caveat that an unobserved finding is not proof of remediation unless the same checks completed, which steers interpretation of the result.

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 delivers a decisive interpretation caveat. No filler, and the most important constraint is not buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained. However, for a tool in a dense reports_* family, the description omits how it differs from reports_compare/reports_get and leaves the 'target' identifier ambiguous, so an agent still lacks enough to call it confidently.

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 0% for the single 'target' parameter, so the schema does not help. The description only implies scope via 'one target' and adds no format or identifier guidance (ID, name, URL?). Marginally informative but not compensating for the coverage gap.

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 resource and scope: first/last observation of each finding across saved reports of one target. This is a clear verb-resource statement, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like reports_compare or reports_get, which an agent must disambiguate before choosing.

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 phrase 'for inspection and remediation records' implies intended usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative tool. Given four sibling reports_* tools, the routing guidance is thin.

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