get_customer_tier_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the underlying API call (GET /v1/customers/{customer_id}/membership-tier-history) and the return structure (dict with customer_id, total_changes, history[]), which adds significant behavioral context beyond just the action.

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 and well-structured with sections: purpose, companion tool, API call, and return structure. Every sentence serves a purpose and is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return structure, API endpoint, and usage hint. It is complete and sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and how to interpret results.

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 only parameter (customer_id) has a schema description ('客戶內部 ID'), and the description merely says '指定客戶' (specified customer), adding little semantic value. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 retrieves membership tier change history for a specific customer, including tracking upgrades and downgrades with reasons. This is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes from siblings like get_customer_profile and list_membership_tiers.

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 suggests pairing with list_membership_tiers to map tier names and implies use for tracking tier changes. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though the use case is well-defined.

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