get_account_history

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It correctly implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but omits critical details such as data range (e.g., how far back history goes) or output format. This is adequate for a simple retrieval but lacks depth.

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 a single sentence of 7 words with no filler. Every word is necessary, and it is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it fails to describe return values (e.g., what fields are in the history records) or any limitations like date range or pagination. This incomplete specification may require agents to infer expected 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'The account ID to fetch history for'. No format or constraints are specified for the account_id parameter.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'daily balance history for a specific account', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_account_holdings (holdings vs. history) and get_recent_account_balances (recent vs. daily history).

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 does not provide explicit when-to-use instructions or alternatives. While the tool name and context imply usage for historical daily balance queries, no guidance is given on when not to use it or how it compares to similar tools like get_recent_account_balances.

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