list_history_indexer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the endpoint path and parameter names but does not disclose behavior such as pagination, default limit, ordering, or what event types are available. With annotations covering the core safety traits, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short and front-loaded with 'Read History', but the parameter list is redundant with the schema and adds no semantic value. It is not bloated, but it does not earn its place beyond the endpoint line.

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?

For a list tool with three optional parameters and no required fields, the description is thin. It does not explain the meaning of event_type, the format of the response, or how this differs from list_history and list_history_since. An agent would struggle to know what values to pass and what the results represent.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It merely lists 'indexer_id: Query parameter', 'event_type: Query parameter', and 'limit: Query parameter' without adding meaning. The schema already shows these are optional query parameters, so the description adds no value beyond the structured data.

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 says 'Read History' and gives the endpoint GET /api/v1/history/indexer, which identifies the resource and verb. However, it does not explain what 'history' means in this context or what an indexer history entry represents, and it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like list_history or list_history_since.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools list_history and list_history_since exist, but the description does not mention them or explain the distinction, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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