x_api_get_connection_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only risk, required bearer token, environment-selection behavior for scopeTenantId/scopeUserId/scopeAccountId/credentialKey, common failure conditions (missing credentials, rate limits), and safety warnings about sensitive data. This is substantial behavioral detail beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with labeled sections, but it contains redundancy: the opening line 'Get Connection History' is repeated in the 'Use when' section. The length is justified by rich detail, but the tautology could be removed for better conciseness. Overall it's readable and front-loaded with purpose.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates with an expected response shape, failure conditions, prerequisites, and a usage example. It doesn't explain pagination semantics or fully describe all parameters, but for a read-only history tool, it covers the essential operational context. The example is helpful.

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 must compensate. It explains the semantics of scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey via environment-selection behavior. However, for status, endpoints, max_results, and pagination_token, it merely lists their types without explaining their meaning or usage. authorizationKey and preferredAuthType are not mentioned at all, leaving gaps for 6 of 10 parameters.

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 'Get Connection History,' which is a clear verb+resource statement. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling x_connection_info, and the 'Use when: Get Connection History' is tautological. The rest of the description clarifies it's a read-only operation, but the core purpose is mostly a restatement of the tool name.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Do not use when: a more specific auth/configuration tool is required before the API call or you are only exploring; prefer x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion first.' It also lists recommended prerequisite/follow-up tools, such as x_auth_get_scope_credentials and x_api_request. However, the 'Use when: Get Connection History' section is circular and doesn't add new usage context.

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