get_reader_access_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the composite nature, the absence of a server-side reader filter, client-side filtering, SCANWINDOW semantics, the opt-out RESOLVEDESCRIPTIONS default, and the single top-level READERDESCRIPTION field via one GetReaders full-table fetch. This exceeds typical transparency.

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 information-dense but long and run-on, especially the RESOLVEDESCRIPTIONS sentence, which is grammatically tangled and hard to parse. Every clause adds value, but the structure could be split into shorter sentences or bullets to make the key points easier for an agent to absorb.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, composite call behavior, filtering semantics, defaults, and return-field behavior (PERSONID enrichment and READERDESCRIPTION). An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and predict important behavioral quirks.

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. The description adds real value beyond the schema by explaining that RESOLVEDESCRIPTIONS is an inverted opt-out default, that SCANWINDOW scans system-wide records rather than a date range, and that READERDESCRIPTION is attached once per call rather than per match. This is useful additional semantic context.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns a single reader's access (grant/deny) history for a given READERKEY', and immediately clarifies it is a composite of GetAccessHistory + GetPerson. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_access_history by noting the lack of a server-side reader filter and the client-side filtering approach.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: per-reader history, client-side filtering, and SCANWINDOW-based scanning rather than date ranges. It contrasts the inverted RESOLVEDESCRIPTIONS default with get_access_history's behavior, but it could more explicitly state when to prefer this vs get_access_history or another sibling.

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