get_change_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the operation and fails to mention return format, pagination, permissions, or how dateRange affects results, leaving critical behavioral traits unknown.

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 short (one phrase), but this is under-specification rather than concise efficiency. It fails to provide necessary context, making the brevity a liability rather than a strength.

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 the lack of annotations, output schema, and the presence of two parameters (one undocumented), the description is far from complete. It omits information about return values, parameter behavior, and any filtering or output options, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's full capabilities.

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 schema has 50% parameter coverage: customerId is described but dateRange is not. The description does not compensate for the undocumented dateRange or add any usage context for either parameter, so it adds no 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 states 'Get account change history log', which clearly indicates the action and resource. However, it is nearly a direct paraphrase of the tool name itself, adding little new information. It is distinct from siblings but lacks any scope or additional detail.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or any exclusions among the many sibling tools.

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