advbox_get_lawsuit_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is helpful, but the description does not explain any additional behavior such as return format, ordering, or whether the history includes all statuses. It is minimally transparent but not misleading.

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 a single, purposeful sentence that immediately states the tool's function. It contains no redundant words or filler, earning its place efficiently.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It clearly conveys what the tool returns (task history) and the scope (specific lawsuit). While it could mention that the result is a list, the implication is strong enough.

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%, so the schema already documents the only parameter (lawsuit_id) with a clear meaning. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('task history of a specific lawsuit'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like advbox_get_lawsuit (which retrieves lawsuit details) and advbox_get_lawsuit_movements (which retrieves movements).

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 establishes clear context: use this tool to retrieve task history for a specific lawsuit, indicated by the required lawsuit_id parameter. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using advbox_list_tasks for a broader task list.

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