get_speech_history_item_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond those annotations, such as return contents, auth requirements, or whether the item includes metadata versus audio.

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 very short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. Like a minimal placeholder, it lacks enough structure to orient an agent beyond the tool name.

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 simple get-by-ID tool, the schema and annotations cover much of the need, but with no output schema the description should at least hint at what a speech history item contains or what the caller gets back. 'Get History Item' leaves that unclear and does not fully compensate for the missing output schema.

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 100%, and the single parameter history_item_id is fully documented in the schema, including how to obtain IDs. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema carries the semantic load.

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 'Get History Item' essentially restates the tool name/title without adding specificity. It names a verb and a generic resource, but does not clearly distinguish this from siblings like get_speech_history, download_speech_history_items, or get_audio_full_from_speech_history_item.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when-not to use it, prerequisites, or relevant sibling tools, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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