login_keys_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Usage history' weakly implies a read-only retrieval operation, but it does not explain what the history contains, whether it is paginated, whether any filtering or time range applies, or whether any side effects or special permissions are involved.

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 core sentence is concise and front-loaded, but the Args block is redundant with the input schema and adds no information. The description is short enough, but not every line earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient: it names the resource and the required key_id. However, it lacks sibling differentiation and behavioral detail, and with no annotations the overall context is thinner than it should be.

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%, and the description's 'Args: key_id: Key id' simply repeats the schema's title 'Key Id' without adding meaning. The only parameter is self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional semantic value beyond the structured schema.

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 phrase 'Usage history for a login key' clearly identifies the resource (a login key) and the kind of information returned (usage history). It is not as explicit as a verb like 'retrieve' or 'list', and it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like login_history or users_login_history, but the intent is understandable.

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 such as login_history, users_login_history, or login_keys_get. The description only restates that it provides usage history, leaving an agent to infer selection criteria without support.

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