users_login_history

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only lookup by its wording, but it does not state whether this is non-mutating, what time range is covered, how results are ordered, or whether any special permissions are required.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args block is necessary and directly tied to the single parameter. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 single-parameter read-style tool with an output schema present, the description is minimally workable. However, it lacks context about how this differs from the similarly named login_history sibling and does not clarify the scope of 'history', so an agent might still be uncertain when selecting it.

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?

The input schema only provides the parameter name 'username', while the description adds 'Account name', which clarifies what value should be supplied. With only one parameter and no schema-level description, this is a meaningful addition, though it is still somewhat terse.

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 'Login history for a specific user' clearly identifies the resource and scope, and the required username parameter reinforces that this is per-user rather than system-wide. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list', and it does not directly name the sibling login_history tool to distinguish itself.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as login_history, audit_search, or sessions_list. The only hint is the word 'specific user', but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative recommendation.

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