Get service 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 a genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the required 'services:read' scope when called with an API key, implying session-auth otherwise. It does not mention pagination depth or result size, so it is good but not complete.

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 sentence, front-loaded with purpose, with no filler. It loses a point only because the missing sentence break between the purpose and the permission clause makes it read as a run-on.

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 read-only tool the safety story is covered by annotations and the two params are fully documented in the schema. However, with no output schema, the description should say something about what the action history entries contain or how far back they go; that burden is left entirely unmet.

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 100%: orderNo format and the page/pagination semantics are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (action history for a service), so the agent knows it retrieves historical actions rather than current state. It does not distinguish itself from near-siblings like get_management_history or list_service_operations, so it falls short of the top tier.

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 only guidance is an auth requirement ('services:read when called with an API key'), which is a permission constraint rather than usage guidance. There is no statement of when to call this versus the many other history/operation-listing siblings.

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