get_kpi_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses an important limitation (only a subset of KPIs have history) and directs to a metadata reference. However, it does not describe return format, error behavior, pagination, or other operational details, which leaves gaps for a tool without annotations.

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 two sentences, immediately states the core purpose, and includes a necessary caveat without unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a critical usage prerequisite but omits any description of the return structure. It is adequate for a simple read tool, but missing response details reduces completeness.

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 clear descriptions and enum definitions, so the description need not re-explain parameters. The description adds a useful hint about consulting KPI metadata, but that is more about data availability than parameter meaning. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Get historical KPI values for one instrument.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from batch/current KPI siblings, such as get_kpi_history_batch or get_kpi.

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 implies usage context by noting 'for one instrument' (contrasting with batch alternatives) and explicitly instructs reading 'borsdata://reference/kpi-metadata' to identify which KPIs have history. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative for multiple instruments, so it falls short of a full when/when-not guide.

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