get_history_coverage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool is a read operation (returns data) and likely idempotent, but does not explicitly state it is safe or non-destructive. The simplicity of a parameterless tool mitigates risk, but more clarity on behavior would improve the score.

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 that front-loads the key outputs ('Date span and row counts'). It is concise with no unnecessary words, and every part serves a purpose.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description provides the essential information: what the tool returns. However, it does not clarify the scope (e.g., which account) or the meaning of 'locally archived,' which might be ambiguous. Still, for a simple metadata tool, it is fairly complete.

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 has no parameters (0), so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information because none exist. Per calibration guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 'Date span and row counts of locally archived account history.' It specifies the resource (locally archived account history) and the output (date span and row counts). While it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on metadata about the archive rather than live data, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar history tools like get_trade_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 any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context such as prerequisites, typical scenarios, or suggestions to call this before fetching historical data to check coverage.

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