crehq_location_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. It discloses that the tool provides an append-only event log with dates and sources for one location, implying a read-only historical operation. However, it does not mention the limit parameter behavior (default 200, max 1000) or any potential side effects/access restrictions, leaving some behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then elaborating on the event types and provenance. Every word adds value, with no tautology or redundant information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It does so by enumerating event types (open/close/rebrand/attribute change) and noting 'dates and sources'. For a two-parameter log tool, this is sufficient, though it could be slightly more complete by mentioning response limits or ordering.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters (entity_uid and limit) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds emphasis that entity_uid identifies a single physical location, but it does not add new semantics or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline score is appropriate.

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 the tool returns a 'Full append-only event log for ONE physical store/site (by entity_uid)', specifying both the resource and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like crehq_locations_list or crehq_location_get by emphasizing the singular location and historical nature, meeting the 'specific verb+resource' + sibling differentiation bar.

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 clearly sets the usage context: this tool is for retrieving the complete historical record of a single physical location, as evidenced by 'ONE physical store/site' and the event types listed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope and append-only nature make its purpose distinct, placing it between 'implied' and 'clear context without exclusions'.

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