get_subtopic_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds context about what data is returned (attempts, trend, state) but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as error conditions, empty result handling, or rate limits. It is consistent with annotations and adds modest value beyond them.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Return') and the resource ('attempts, trend, and state for one subtopic'). Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description names the three kinds of returned information, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and basic expected output. It could be more detailed about the exact structure or semantics of 'attempts, trend, and state,' but for the low complexity, it is adequately complete.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with a clear description for subtopic_id: 'Subtopic id returned by list_subtopics or create_subtopic; never a user id.' The tool description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Return attempts, trend, and state for one subtopic.' It is unambiguous about what the tool does and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like list_subtopics or get_due_subtopics by targeting a single subtopic's history.

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 phrase 'for one subtopic' gives clear context for when to use this tool: when attempting to retrieve historical data about a specific subtopic. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage relative to sibling tools.

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