get_change_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds the 90-day time window constraint, which is useful behavioral context. It doesn't describe output format (output schema exists) or any side effects, so it adds some value beyond annotations but not extensive.

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 concise, front-loading the purpose in the first line. The parameter notes are terse and efficient. However, the use of an ellipsis '...' in the changes list is incomplete and slightly sloppy, and the structure could be improved with clear sections for each parameter.

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 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description is insufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. It explains some parameters but omits key ones like market, entity_ids, and campaign_ids, and doesn't clarify the meaning of the allowed values. The agent would have to guess or rely on external knowledge.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains 'since' and its relationship to 'days', and lists allowed values for entity_types and changes (with an ellipsis). However, it leaves market, entity_ids, and campaign_ids completely unexplained, which is a significant gap for a 7-parameter tool with a required market parameter.

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 returns change history with details of what changed, from what, to what, and when. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_suggested_bids or run_report by its explicit focus on change history. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with any specific sibling, so it's clear but not differentiated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context like 'use for auditing changes' or exclude cases where other tools are better. The description is purely declarative and offers no usage direction.

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