Get Skill History

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

Discloses that the tool is read-only (consistent with annotations), returns time-series data with specific fields, and mentions the access tier. The description adds value beyond the annotations by detailing the output structure and use cases.

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?

Very concise: one sentence describing output plus two example queries. No wasted words, and the important details are front-loaded.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description clearly explains the return fields (monthly companyCount, jobMentions, top companies, MoM deltas). This is sufficient for a simple time-series tool. The access tier note adds useful context.

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 description does not need to add much. It provides examples of skill names and notes default months (12) and max (24), but this information is already in the schema descriptions. No significant enhancement.

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 clearly states it returns time-series data of a skill's market adoption, listing specific fields (monthly companyCount, jobMentions, top companies, MoM deltas) and giving example queries. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'get_company_history' or 'get_market_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?

Provides clear context with example questions ('how fast is Rust adoption growing?', 'is React still dominant?'). Mentions 'Pro+ tier' as access constraint. Does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the examples imply usage scenarios.

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