Host Check History

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying ordering (newest first), per-execution row cardinality, and the fields included (output, latency, execution time). This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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?

Three compact sentences with no filler. The core behavior and ordering are front-loaded, and the sibling differentiation is placed at the end without disrupting the main message.

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 rich annotations, 100% parameter schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, nothing critical is missing. The description covers purpose, ordering, cardinality, and the key alternative, making the tool fully actionable for an agent.

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 100% and already documents hostname as required/exact, hours as a lookback window, and limit with default/maximum. The description's mention of 'per run' and 'one row per check execution' adds mild context about what the limit counts, but the schema carries the main parameter burden.

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 the tool lists individual check executions for a host, and explicitly contrasts with list_host_state_changes, which only covers state-change points. This gives the agent a precise, distinctive understanding of the tool's purpose.

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 identifies the relevant sibling alternative (list_host_state_changes) and explains the difference: this tool returns every check execution while the sibling only returns state changes. This is a clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use signal.

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