get_decision_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'immutable' usefully implies a read-only, historical view. However, it doesn't disclose parameter behavior, authentication needs, pagination, or error scenarios. For a simple getter, this is moderate but incomplete transparency.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. It states the action and result clearly, making it concise and well-structured for its length.

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 two parameters and an output schema, the description should explain parameter semantics and use context. It does neither, leaving the agent without enough information to decide when to invoke this tool or how to set parameters 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%, and the description does not mention 'limit' or 'league_id' at all. The agent must infer meaning purely from parameter names, which is insufficient. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states a clear verb ('Return') and resource ('decision history'), and specifies the content ('recommendation inputs, alternatives, actions, and outcomes'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that record or recommend decisions, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar retrieval tools like get_calibration_report.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it's for viewing historical records, nor does it provide exclusions or contextual hints. The description is purely functional and lacks any usage direction.

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