get_action_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: requires specific permission, only functional on hosted endpoint, and local server is a stub. This goes beyond typical parameter descriptions.

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 sentence with a useful '[utility]' prefix, no wasted words, and critical constraints included upfront.

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?

The description covers purpose, permission, and hosting constraint, but omits details like pagination, output format, or how to specify date ranges. Given no output schema and generic params, more context would help.

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% but parameter descriptions are vague ('Optional high-level request'). The tool description does not clarify how to use them for filtering or querying audit history, adding little value beyond the schema.

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 the tool returns 'tenant-wide write audit history', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it's a utility tool, unlike the many campaign/keyword tools.

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 clear context on when to use (need audit history) and a prerequisite (API key permission), but no explicit exclusions or alternatives. Since no sibling tool serves the same purpose, this is acceptable.

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