Accounts Get Account History

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds no behavioral context. It does not disclose what data is returned, whether pagination occurs, or any other behavioral trait beyond what annotations already provide.

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 extremely short (four words) but this is under-specification, not conciseness. Key details like return shape, parameter roles, and usage context are missing, making it minimally useful.

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?

With no output schema and four parameters, the description provides no information about what the tool returns (e.g., list of transactions, balance summaries, or raw data). It is inadequate for an agent to correctly understand the tool's function and output.

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 50%, with account_id and session_path lacking descriptions. The description does not explain these parameters or clarify how they affect the 'history' output, failing to compensate for the schema's gaps.

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 almost a tautology, simply restating the name and title. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like accounts_get_historical_balances or accounts_get_account, leaving ambiguity about what 'history' entails (e.g., transactions, balance changes).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings covering specific account data, historical balances, and net worth, the lack of usage context forces the agent to guess.

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