get_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that grabbed events carry indexer attribution, which is genuine behavioral detail, but says nothing about pagination, default limit of 50, or how far back history is retained.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in one line, followed by two short illustrative examples. The event list partially duplicates the event_type enum in the schema, but the whole thing is tight and no sentence is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly stays focused on query intent. For a zero-required-parameter query tool with six optional filters, it covers the main axes adequately, though it doesn't mention default time window or result caps.

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 83%, so the schema already documents days, limit, movie, series, service, and event_type. The description adds no syntax or format hints (e.g., title vs. ID resolution for movie/series), so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Activity history') and enumerates the event categories it returns (grabs with indexer, imports, failed downloads, deletions), which cleanly separates it from get_logs, get_queue, and get_blocklist. It stops short of naming a sibling it is not, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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 two example questions ('Which indexer did S03E04 come from?', 'What failed to download in the last 7 days?') implicitly show when to reach for this tool, which is more than nothing. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives like get_logs for raw events or get_blocklist for blocked items.

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