get_worker_verdict_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that results are bucketed over time and include successes, errors, and not-required counts, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe response structure, default scoping when no params are provided, or details about what 'not-required' means.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, includes the endpoint, and then immediately gives the practical use case.

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 read-only stats query with four optional well-documented parameters, the description covers the main purpose, the data returned, and the scenario for use. Minor gaps remain around default behavior and exact response shape, but nothing blocks an agent from correctly invoking 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds general context about bucketed counts but doesn't add details about parameter format, constraints, or default behaviors beyond what the schema says.

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 specific resource ('transcode and health check outcomes over time'), and the key data returned ('successes, errors and not-required counts'). It also includes the exact API endpoint, making the purpose unambiguous and easy to distinguish from broader stats tools like get_worker_history.

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 gives clear context: 'The quickest way to see whether a change made failures go up.' This tells an agent when to prefer this tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is stated clearly.

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