get_operations

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals content and ordering (each command with its reason and contemporaneous prices, newest first), which is real behavioral context. It says nothing about how the limit behaves, whether older history is truncated, or the cost of large queries, leaving gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two compact sentences, both front-loaded: the first says what comes back and in what order, the second gives the motivating question. No filler or restated field names.

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 shape need not be re-explained, and the description covers content and ordering well. However, with two undocumented parameters and no annotations, the definition leaves the caller guessing about limit semantics and scope of site_id, which is a meaningful gap for a list 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description would ideally explain site_id and limit. It gives no parameter detail, though 'newest first' plus 'prices at the time' implicitly frames what the returned records contain. It does not clarify that limit caps the number of operations returned or how site_id scopes results.

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 the resource precisely: the log of what the platform did to the site, both Ai+ automatic and manual commands, each with reason and historical prices, ordered newest first. An agent can distinguish this from get_prices or get_earnings because it returns commands plus rationale rather than raw data. It never names a sibling to contrast against, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Provides an explicit scenario: 'Use it to explain why did it charge at 3am.' That tells the agent when this tool is the right pick. It stops short of stating when not to use it or which sibling (e.g. get_prices, get_earnings) to prefer for other questions.

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