Get History record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating rejected parameters and clarifying that `domain` is the public UUID rather than a hostname, but says nothing about not-found behavior, error shapes, or how the filter params constrain a single-record fetch.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the read action and the two required identifiers before the filter rules. No filler, though the two rejection sentences could be merged into one.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a 35-parameter tool with 3% schema coverage, the description leaves the bulk of the filter surface unexplained and offloads it to a sibling tool's documentation — an agent could call this correctly only by reading shieldlabs_list_history first.

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 only 3% across 35 parameters, so the description carries most of the burden — and it only explains `domain`, `resource_id`, `device_id_source` (whose values are already an enum) and the rejected params. The ~30 boolean/array filters (risk_bands, hre_min_devices, is_antidetect, etc.) get no explanation at all beyond the pointer to the list tool's 'flat list filters'.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Read one identification, user, visitor, device or ip card', which maps directly to the `resource` enum and distinguishes it from the list sibling by the word 'one'. It never names shieldlabs_list_history explicitly, so the agent must infer the single-vs-list split from context.

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 exclusions are genuinely useful ('relation, relation_limit and relation_page_token are not accepted', 'nested filter, chips, offset and include_total are rejected'), steering the agent away from params it might otherwise guess. But 'The same flat list filters apply' is an unqualified cross-reference that only makes sense if the agent has already loaded shieldlabs_list_history, and there is no statement of when to prefer this over that sibling.

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