Grid Trigger History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds useful context about what the response contains (per-child-order prices, quantities, execution details, trigger times), which is genuinely informative. It does not disclose ordering, empty-history behavior, or limits beyond the paging already in the schema, acceptable given annotation coverage. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with the core purpose front-loaded in the first phrase, followed by response content and a brief pagination note. There is no filler or redundancy with the schema except the short 'Supports page/limit' tail. Appropriately sized for a 4-param read tool with fully described schema; a touch more comparative guidance would raise it, but the structure itself is clean.

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 read-only tool with 100% schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is mostly adequate and partially compensates for the missing output schema by listing the per-child-order fields. Remaining gaps: no guidance distinguishing this from grid_detail/history_executions, no behavior for empty trigger histories, and no return-ordering semantics. Adequate for basic invocation but not complete for nuanced selection.

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%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters including required order_id. The description adds marginal value by reaffirming pagination ('Supports page/limit') and clarifying order_id's role ('for one grid order'), but these merely echo or lightly reinforce schema semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter-explanation burden.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement ('Trigger history for one grid order') and enumerates the content scope (each triggered child order with price, quantity, executed price/qty, trigger time). This distinguishes it from sibling tools: grid_detail covers grid configuration, grid_list enumerates grids, and history_executions covers executions generally. The 'triggered child order' concept is distinctive enough to separate it from siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

'For one grid order' plus 'Supports page/limit' implies the usage context: supply a specific order_id and paginate results. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance — an agent must infer that grid_detail or grid_list serve different grid-level needs and that this tool is for per-order trigger breakdowns. Usage is implied rather than stated, with no exclusions.

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