list-item-events

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that — required scopes/permissions, the fact that resolve notes live in item_status_history.comment rather than item_comment, and the boundary that this returns history not errors. It does not discuss pagination behavior in prose, though the schema covers pages.

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?

Four tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by permission, filtering, field-mapping, and disambiguation notes. Every sentence carries a distinct, non-redundant fact; nothing repeats the schema or annotations.

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, the description compensates by naming ordering and where resolve notes appear in the result, and it covers auth prerequisites and the error-vs-history boundary. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it does not describe the overall response structure for a history listing.

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%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not: omitting 'type' means all event types, and the mapping of resolve notes to item_status_history.comment clarifies how to interpret the type enum. This is genuine interpretive value for the type parameter.

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 ('List an item's history'), plus ordering ('oldest first') and scope ('including system events'). It also actively distinguishes itself from a sibling concern with 'This lists history, not error occurrences', so an agent can separate it from list-occurrences.

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?

Gives concrete usage conditions: omit 'type' to get all event types, and it is explicitly not for error occurrences. It states prerequisites (read scope, project view permission). It does not name a specific alternative tool to use for error lists, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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