get_assessment_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 clearly signals a read operation through 'retrieve' and specifies scope ('all previously saved'), but it does not disclose any edge cases such as whether at least one of phone/email is required, what happens when no results exist, or any pagination/ordering behavior. This is adequate but lacks depth.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the action, target, and scope without any redundant or extraneous words. It is maximally concise while remaining informative.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description successfully conveys the tool's purpose and the key lookup dimensions. The phrase 'all previously saved solar assessments' implies a list return. It does not explicitly discuss parameter optionality or combination logic, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by indicating that email and phone are the lookup keys for the homeowner, which goes beyond the schema's bare 'Email address' and 'Phone number' descriptions. However, it does not clarify whether they are alternative or combined filters, which is a minor gap.

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 ('Retrieve') and clearly identifies the resource ('all previously saved solar assessments') and the lookup method ('by phone or email'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle calculations or irradiance, and it aligns with save_assessment as the read counterpart.

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 implies usage for looking up past assessments, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context suggests it is for historical retrieval rather than new calculations, but this is left implicit.

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