Get login history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: results are paginated and older records are only reachable by following response pagination, which an agent could not infer from the annotations or schema.

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?

A single semicolon-joined sentence with no filler, and the core purpose ('account login history (IPs, dates)') is front-loaded before the pagination note. It is dense but every clause carries information; only the slight compression of two distinct ideas into one sentence costs it a point.

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 read-only tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is close to sufficient, but the interaction between the 'page' parameter and the instructed 'response pagination' is left unresolved — an agent cannot tell whether to pass page or follow the response link for older records. That ambiguity is the main missing piece.

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?

There is one parameter ('page') and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It does mention pagination, which gives the 'page' param some meaning, but it never explains the param's semantics (page number vs offset, default value when omitted) and introduces mild ambiguity by implying pagination is response-driven rather than param-driven.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Get account login history') and even enumerates the payload ('IPs, dates'), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not differentiate from the loosely adjacent audit-style siblings (get_management_history, get_api_key_activity), but there is no true competing login-history tool, so the lack of routing language is a minor gap.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it says to 'follow response pagination to read older records', which tells the agent how to consume results but never says when to reach for this tool versus other history/activity tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, so this is minimum-viable guidance.

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