origin_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses day-level origin sets, MOAS days, and transition classifications, and defines those categories. It omits output shape and edge cases, but for a read-style lookup this is solid behavioral coverage.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, outputs are listed compactly, and the intended use case is stated in the closing sentence. Every clause adds information.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description needs to cover both behavior and inputs. It covers behavior well, but leaves the optional date parameters unexplained and gives no hint about output formatting. Still, the core decision-relevant information is present.

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 explain parameters. It clearly covers 'prefix' and implies a temporal dimension, but it never mentions the 'start' and 'end' parameters, their formats, defaults, or how they bound the day-by-day results. This is a meaningful gap.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Day-by-day origins for a prefix', and lists concrete outputs (origin set, MOAS days, classified transitions). It also frames the tool as 'THE persistence check', which clearly separates its intent from siblings like timeline or compare_windows.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: when checking persistence and when avoiding mistaking a transient blip for a migration. It does not name alternatives or provide explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it loses one point.

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