get_ad_rule_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type ('A dictionary') but does not state that the operation is read-only, does not discuss error behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The 'Get' verb implies read-only, but the description does not explicitly disclose this or other behavioral traits.

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 well-structured with an Args/Returns format, front-loads the purpose, and contains no redundant sentences. Every sentence provides useful information, making it easy to parse.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return structure in detail. It covers all parameters with necessary semantics and the return type. However, it omits any mention of error conditions or constraints (e.g., max limit), which would be helpful but not strictly required. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. It explains each parameter: rule_id, fields (with available values and default), limit, after, and before (pagination cursors). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema definitions.

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: 'Get the execution history of an automated ad rule — what actions it has taken and when.' It names the specific resource (ad rule history) and the action (get), and it is distinguishable from siblings like get_ad_rules which fetch rules themselves, not their history.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. While the purpose implies its use case, there is no explicit routing or context to help an agent decide between this and other tools.

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