List service history (pickups)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, which cover the read-only and safe nature. The description adds valuable behavioral context by mentioning pagination and status filtering, which are not in the annotations. It also repeats 'Read-only,' which is redundant but consistent. No contradictions with annotations; the added details enhance transparency beyond what structured data provides.

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, readable sentence that front-loads the core action ('List past collection stops') and then provides details on fields and capabilities. It is efficient with no fluff or repetition (except the redundant 'Read-only,' which is minor). The structure is clear and scannable, though it could be broken into two sentences for even better readability.

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 list tool with no required parameters and a rich schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns (fields listed), how to filter (status), and pagination. It does not describe the exact response format, but no output schema is provided and the field list gives a good idea. Given the low complexity and safe read-only nature, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions for page, status, and per_page. The description only mentions 'filterable by status' and 'paginated,' which restate what the schema already explains. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the description adds no extra semantic value beyond confirming the behavior. 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 purpose: 'List past collection stops for your account' with a specific verb and resource. It also enumerates the returned fields (date, status, collection time, weight, services rendered), which aids understanding. The word 'past' and 'history' distinguish it from the sibling 'crowntown_list_upcoming_services' without explicit naming, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 when to use it ('past collection stops') and the sibling for upcoming is named, but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. There is no direct statement like 'use this for past services, use list_upcoming_services for future ones.' The context is clear but not spelled out, so it falls short of an explicit usage guideline.

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