optimization_history

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only additional signal is "bounded", which hints at a result limit but never states the bound, time window, or ordering, so the added context is thin rather than wrong.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is appropriately sized. It is efficient, though its brevity comes partly at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. Still missing for a 3-required-param tool: what "bounded" limits mean, how the policy is identified, and any relation to the adjacent history/plan tools.

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 67%: profile and adAccountId are documented in-schema while policy has no schema description. The description says "for a named policy" but does not clarify whether policy is a name, slug, or ID (siblings optimization_policy_get / optimization_policies_list suggest identifiers), so it only partially compensates for the gap.

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?

It names a verb ("Read") and a resource ("decisions and verification history") constrained to "a named policy", which is more specific than a tautology. However, qualifiers like "bounded local" are unexplained jargon, and nothing here distinguishes it from close siblings such as change_history, change_history_detail, operations_inspect, or operations_verify.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this instead of the many history/inspection siblings (change_history, operations_verify, optimization_plan). The reader can only infer usage from the word "history"; no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are given.

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