get_anomaly_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns a time-series of scores and explains meanings of empty results, providing some additional context beyond annotations.

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 concise, front-loads the main purpose, and includes usage, prerequisites, behavior, result, and related tools in a single well-structured paragraph with no wasted words.

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 tool with 3 params and no output schema, the description explains the return type ('time-series of scores'), empty result meaning, and prerequisites. It is largely complete, though more details on the exact response format could be beneficial.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant detail beyond what the schema provides for each parameter. Each parameter has a brief description in the schema, and the description adds overall context but not per-parameter semantics.

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 explicitly states 'Replay historical anomaly scores for a service from the TSDB', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'detect_anomalies' by mentioning it is for live scores.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios ('post-mortem reconstruction, trend analysis') and mentions prerequisites (OMCP_ANOMALY_HISTORY_REMOTE_WRITE and Prometheus source). It also explains the meaning of an empty result and relates to sibling tools for live scores.

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