Get Printer MCP history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces this with 'Does not print,' which is genuinely useful in a print-focused toolset, but adds nothing about ordering, retention, or result shape beyond that.

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 compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the negative constraint last; there is essentially no filler. The 'stable history IDs' phrase is slightly cryptic but still earns its place by hinting at the return payload.

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 no output schema and no annotations gap, the description does a fair job of indicating what comes back (submissions plus stable history IDs). It omits which history IDs feed which sibling tool and says nothing about the limit/counting behavior, leaving a small but real gap.

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 'limit' parameter, so the schema supplies only type/default/min/max with no meaning. The description never mentions result count, default size, or pagination, leaving the one parameter's semantics unexplained.

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 verb and resource ('Lists recent Printer MCP submissions and stable history IDs') and explicitly disambiguates from the print-family tools with 'Does not print.' It is clearly separable from siblings like get_print_queue or inspect_print_job.

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 retry and duplicate diagnostics' gives clear context for when an agent should reach for this tool, which pairs naturally with sibling retry_print_job. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or when-not conditions, so it is not a 5.

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