get_history_since

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the response is unpaged and includes every history record in the date range, which are important behavioral traits. But it does not mention ordering, potential large-result implications, or what fields the returned records contain.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the core behavior and a practical use case without any filler. The main action is front-loaded immediately, and every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 date-filtered read tool, this is nearly complete: it identifies what is returned, the temporal scope, and a canonical use case. It would be stronger with explicit routing to related history tools or a note about response contents, but the absent output schema is not a major issue given the domain clarity.

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 date, event_type, include_series, and include_episode. The description reinforces that 'date' is the temporal cutoff but adds no meaning for the optional parameters, matching the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 states a specific verb ('get'), a clear resource ('history record'), and a precise temporal constraint ('since a date'). The word 'unpaged' helps distinguish it from likely paged history endpoints, and the accompanying use case removes ambiguity.

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 phrase 'useful for "what happened since yesterday" style questions' gives clear guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like get_history or get_series_history, nor does it state when those should be preferred, so it stops short of a 5.

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