get_intelligence_history

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.03 USDC via x402) and the nature of the operation (historical retrieval). However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive, nor does it mention any authentication or rate limits. Still, the 'Get' verb implies a read operation, and the cost is a key behavioral fact, so this is above the minimum but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. The primary purpose and configurable window are front-loaded, followed by the cost. Every word earns its place, making it highly scannable.

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 only two simple parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description provides sufficient context: the resource type (Master Intelligence Digests) and the purpose (track evolution over time). It does not detail the return format, but the absence of an output schema means the description need not explain a complex structure. Overall, it covers the essentials.

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 100% — both parameters have full descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter detail beyond mentioning the lookback window, which is already covered. As such, this is a baseline 3; the description does not need to compensate.

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 action ('Get historical Master Intelligence Digests'), the resource (digests), and the key differentiator (configurable lookback window). It stands out from siblings like get_intelligence_digest (presumably current) and get_intelligence_sample, so an agent can easily distinguish it.

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 communicates the intended use case ('Track how the unified intelligence picture evolves over time') and specifies a configurable lookback, which gives clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, though the context is clear enough for a historical query tool.

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