List BAS assessment history IDs

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds little beyond the title's 'historical assessment IDs' and does not mention return format, pagination, or ordering, but the safety profile is covered by annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no redundant information. Every clause earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, so the description adequately covers the scope and expected result type ('historical assessment IDs'). It omits potential pagination or ordering details, but given the low complexity and strong annotations, the description is mostly 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?

The only parameter 'module' is fully enumerated in the schema, and the description's 'selected BAS module' ties the parameter to its purpose. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description does little to clarify the meaning of specific enum values or add usage details beyond what the schema already shows.

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 'List historical assessment IDs for the selected BAS module', which is a specific verb+resource combination, and the title reinforces it. It also explicitly distinguishes this from the module-specific /ids endpoint by indicating preference, so it is not confused with sibling tools.

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 provides direct selection guidance: 'Prefer this over the module-specific /ids endpoint.' This explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus an alternative, which fulfills the when-to-use requirement.

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