get_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the data scope ('since BiziDashboard started recording') and the inclusion of coverage metadata. However, it does not mention limits, pagination, or performance characteristics. It is honest about what it returns but lacks deep behavioral detail.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. The second sentence adds valuable context about why this tool exists relative to GBFS. No wasted words.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what data is returned (demand/balance history, coverage metadata) and the temporal scope. It could mention the default format, but the schema already documents that. Minor gaps remain about how data is structured, but overall adequate.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage of the single optional 'format' parameter, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It does not repeat or supplement the schema, and no additional parameter meaning is provided. A baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full historical daily demand/balance data') plus additional context ('coverage metadata'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_alerts_history by specifying the data type (demand/balance) and the long-range scope.

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 clear context: it is for long-range historical data that GBFS cannot provide. This implies when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The contrast with GBFS gives a practical alternative but not a sibling exclusion.

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