get_log_alert_history

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive, yet the description still adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the exact return envelope {items, returned, limit, total, truncated, hint}, the fact that each item carries at most 3 events, and the paging rule that a full page yields total null and truncated true. That is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the discriminating clause before the return-shape detail. It is dense and long-ish, but nearly every sentence carries information an agent needs (envelope shape, 3-event cap, pagination behavior); only the '(verified on 8.18.7)' asides are mild filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract — and it does, including item fields, the messages sub-array, empty-list behavior, and truncation semantics. Combined with 100% parameter coverage, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 is 3, but the description adds interpretive meaning for limit that the schema alone doesn't: it explains how to read total/truncated relative to page size and implies the limit bounds how much history is reachable. The alert_id and target semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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 recent trigger-history records for an alert.' It also explicitly scopes itself against the definition-oriented sibling with 'Use this for when an alert fired, not how it's defined,' so an agent can separate it from get_log_alert/list_log_alerts without opening schemas.

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 clear when-to-use guidance ('when an alert fired, not how it's defined') plus an edge-case rule: an alert that never fired returns an empty list, not an error. It stops short of naming the alternative tool explicitly (get_log_alert) or stating when-not to call it, so it is clear context without full routing.

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