get_points_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state the important default behavior of using the logged-in user, but it does not explicitly describe read-only status, permission implications, or behavior when a username is supplied. It is not misleading, but it is minimal.

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 a single clear sentence with no filler. The essential scoping information—what is retrieved and who it defaults to—is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 query tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the resource and the default behavior adequately. It leaves some details unspecified, such as behavior when a username is explicitly provided and the exact return format, but nothing critical prevents correct tool selection.

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 schema only defines username as a string with no description. The tool description adds meaning by stating that it defaults to the logged-in user, which clarifies that the username parameter is optional and that omitting it selects the current user. This meaningfully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get energy points income/expense history.' It clearly identifies what the tool returns and the logged-in-user default. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_points_scores, but the resource phrasing is specific enough for an agent to infer the distinction.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tools are mentioned. The default-to-logged-in-user note is contextual but does not help the agent decide between this tool and similar points-related siblings.

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