get_history_deals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'list' and mentions ISO dates, but fails to disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, output format, or pagination. Significant gaps remain.

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 extremely concise, with one sentence that front-loads the purpose. It could benefit from slight restructuring to separate filtering modes, but it efficiently conveys core functionality without excess.

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?

Given 5 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits the role of the group parameter and does not note that all parameters are optional. While an output schema exists, the description lacks sufficient context for full autonomous use.

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 description adds meaning by indicating date_from/date_to are ISO dates and that ticket/position can be used as filters. However, it does not explain the 'group' parameter, leaving one parameter unaddressed. With 0% schema coverage, more detail is needed.

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 the tool lists historical deals and specifies two filtering modes: by date range or by ticket/position. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_trade_history or calculate_profit.

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 implies when to use the tool (to get historical deals) and gives context on parameter usage, but does not explicitly exclude alternative scenarios or mention when not to use it. No sibling differentiation provided.

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