panelica_security_get_v1_security_login_history

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

Annotations already communicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the required OAuth scope 'accounts:read', which is auth-relevant context not present in the annotations, and repeats 'Read-only' consistently. No conflicts with the annotations exist.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the core action 'Get login history', then provides endpoint, category, required scope, and read-only status in a few short lines. No filler or unnecessary prose is present.

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 zero-parameter, read-only GET operation, the description is mostly sufficient, providing endpoint, category, and auth requirement. It does not describe the response shape or contents beyond 'login history', but there is no output schema and the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the schema is empty and all optional/required counts are zero. The description therefore does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters, and the baseline 4 is appropriate.

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?

States a clear verb and resource: 'Get login history', reinforced by the explicit HTTP endpoint GET /v1/security/login-history. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like audit logs or session management, but the resource is specific enough to stand apart.

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 given for when to use this tool instead of related logging/security tools such as panelica_audit_get_v1_activity_log or panelica_sessions_get_v1_sessions. The description lists category and required scope, but not selection criteria or exclusions.

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