get_stay_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the authentication requirement ('Requires being logged in'), which is valuable context not captured elsewhere. However, it doesn't disclose other important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the user isn't logged in. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise and well-structured - just two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and a key prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text. The information is front-loaded with the core functionality first, followed by the authentication requirement.

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's moderate complexity (retrieving historical data with authentication), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a basic but incomplete picture. It covers the what and the authentication requirement but doesn't address return format, pagination, error handling, or how results are ordered. For a tool that retrieves potentially sensitive historical data, more context would be helpful.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'maxResults' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters or add any semantic context beyond what the schema provides. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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's purpose: 'View past Hilton stays' with specific details about what information is included (hotel names, dates, points earned, total nights). It uses a specific verb ('View') and identifies the resource ('past Hilton stays'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_reservation' or 'get_honors_status'.

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 provides some usage context by stating 'Requires being logged in,' which is helpful guidance about prerequisites. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_reservation' (for current/future stays) or 'get_honors_status' (for account status rather than stay history). The usage is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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