history_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds that it reports coverage metadata (first/last day, rows, final days), which is useful context about the return content beyond mere 'status', but no auth requirements or limitations are mentioned.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the subject. No wasted words, though the fragment structure is slightly terse.

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 a read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema, the description need not explain return values. However, it should clarify the relationship with sibling history_* tools and the optional site_url semantics. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 site_url parameter. The description does not explain what site_url controls or whether omitting it returns all properties. Baseline 3 when a single parameter exists and schema adds nothing.

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 what the tool reports (local history contents: per property, search type, first/last day, rows, final days) but does not use a clear verb like 'retrieve' or 'list' and offers no differentiation from sibling tools like history_query or history_trend. An agent must infer that this is a status/metadata report rather than a data-fetching 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus history_query, history_trend, history_compare, or history_sql. The agent is left to guess based on the name and vague description.

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