Get Promotion History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the useful constraint that results are session-scoped rather than global, but says nothing about what a history entry contains or how results are ordered or bounded.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, and the scope constraint is front-loaded immediately after the verb-resource pair. Nothing is padded and nothing needs to be reordered.

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 no-param read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it names the returned concept but not the shape of a history entry, whose history is returned (calling agent, session, or all participants), or whether the result set is bounded. The annotations carry the safety profile, so the remaining gap is about return content, not behavior.

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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies; no parameter explanation is required or missing.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('promotion review history') with an explicit scope qualifier ('for this session'), which is more than a restatement of the title. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as review_promotion, verify_endorsement, or get_behavioral_sequence, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative. 'For this session' is a scoping detail, not usage direction; an agent has no signal about when to reach for this versus review_promotion or update_reputation.

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