elevenlabs_get_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only the account scope and does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, rate limits, or what the returned history items contain.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though arguably too terse for a tool whose schema leaves three parameters undocumented.

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?

With four parameters, 25% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description should explain pagination and response shape. It does not, leaving an agent without enough context to use the optional filters correctly.

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 only 25%; only voice_id has a schema description. The description does not explain api_key, page_size, or start_after_history_item_id, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states a clear verb and resource: get TTS generation history for an ElevenLabs account. It is specific enough to distinguish from voice/model/TTS siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or scope boundaries.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as elevenlabs_list_voices or elevenlabs_text_to_speech. The intended use is only implied by the phrase 'generation history'.

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