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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns history and uses a GraphQL service, but omits details on pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only (implied but not stated). For an unannotated tool, more behavioral context is needed.

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 two sentences long, no fluff, and directly states the purpose and service. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the simple input and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It explains the tool's purpose and the underlying service. However, it lacks information about the output structure, possible limits, and whether the history is paginated. This leaves some uncertainty for the agent.

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% for the single parameter 'sender', with a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it simply restates that it returns history. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Returns the ERC-4337 UserOperation history for a smart account on Fuse', using a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('UserOperation history'). The title 'Get user operations' aligns well. Among many sibling tools, this is distinct as a query tool for user operations.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'indexed via the Fusebox GraphQL service' but does not specify prerequisites, scenarios, or when to prefer other tools like fuse_get_receipt or fuse_smart_get_info. No exclusion criteria are provided.

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