get_member_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that only completed activities are returned and authentication is required. However, it does not mention rate limits, pagination behavior, or error handling for missing members. The disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 three concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and key constraints. Every sentence provides value, though the structure could be slightly more explicit (e.g., separating constraints).

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers core purpose, constraints, and authentication. However, it omits behavioral details like pagination defaults or error scenarios, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only references that filters are the same as get_activity_history, which is redundant given the schema.

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 it retrieves past activity history for any member via slug or profile URL, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_activity_history (self-only). This provides a specific verb+resource+scope with clear sibling differentiation.

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 gives clear context: use for any member's history, while get_activity_history is for self-only. It also states authentication is required. Although it doesn't provide explicit 'when not to use' beyond the sibling mention, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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