Accounts Get Account History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what the name implies; it does not disclose output shape, pagination, ordering, or any limits. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still contributes nothing.

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 only three words, which is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It omits essential context about what the history contains and how it relates to sibling tools, so the brevity does not serve the agent.

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 absence of an output schema and the ambiguity of 'account history', the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return format, scope of history, or how to interpret the output_mode parameter in this context. An agent would need to inspect the schema and make assumptions about the tool's actual behavior.

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 67% (fields and output_mode are documented, account_id is not). The description itself provides no parameter-level detail, but the schema already explains the two non-trivial parameters well. Given moderate coverage and an obvious required account_id, the description's lack of additional parameter semantics is a gap but not severe.

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 'Get account history' is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name and title, providing no additional specificity. It does not clarify what constitutes 'history' (e.g., transactions, balance changes, activity events) or how it differs from sibling tools like accounts_get_historical_balances.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as accounts_get_historical_balances, accounts_get_account, or transactions_list_transactions. An agent cannot determine the appropriate context for selecting this tool over its siblings.

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