rb209_grass_histories

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does convey a read-only GET/list operation, which is useful, but it omits details such as return shape, pagination, authentication, or not-found behavior. The read-only nature is somewhat transparent due to 'GET' and 'list'.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the HTTP method and resource. It wastes little space, though 'Grass history list of grass fields' is slightly redundant.

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 one-parameter list endpoint this is minimally adequate, but the description does not clarify what a grass history contains, whether results are complete/paginated, or how it differs from rb209_grass_history. The absence of an output schema makes this a noticeable but not critical gap.

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% and the single 'countryId' parameter is already described as a filter. The description repeats the path parameter but adds no semantic value beyond the schema, 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?

The description identifies a specific verb ('GET') and resource ('Grass history list of grass fields') and encodes the filtering endpoint. It is clear enough about what the tool lists, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the singular rb209_grass_history sibling.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over the many grass-related siblings, and no alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned. The endpoint path implies a country filter, but the description leaves selection context entirely to inference.

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