get_alerts_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that requesting csv format or a limit above 500 requires BIZI_PUBLIC_API_KEY, which is a critical behavioral constraint. While it doesn't cover all possible quirks (e.g., pagination defaults), it adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the key exception. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without repetition or filler.

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?

Despite 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage context: historical scope, example analysis, and authentication constraints. It doesn't describe return values, but the 100% schema coverage and focus on filters/constraints make it adequate for a query tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping filters to the conceptual fields (station, alert type, severity, time range) and by explaining the API key requirement for specific parameter values (limit > 500). This goes beyond what the schema alone provides.

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?

Description clearly states the tool queries historical alerts (both resolved and active) with specific filters. The example question 'how often has station X run out of bikes' further clarifies its analytical purpose and distinguishes it from likely real-time sibling tools like get_alerts.

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?

Provides a concrete use case ('how often has station X run out of bikes') indicating when to choose this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or directly compare to alternatives like get_alerts or get_history, so it narrowly misses a 5.

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