get_message_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains ordering, filtering, pagination behavior, and the maximum limit. No contradictions or omissions are present.

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 concise paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then adds essential details. Each sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 8 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description covers searching, filtering, sorting, and pagination adequately. It explains how to retrieve subsequent pages and notes the limitation. Missing aspects like error handling are minor for this type of tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some extra context beyond the schema (e.g., default max 1000 items, pagination limitation), but the parameter descriptions in the schema are already quite detailed. The contribution is marginal.

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 verb (search and retrieve) and the resource (LINE message history with friends). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are about tags and friend management, not message 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 provides detailed usage guidance: default sort order, filtering by friend_id and date range, max items per request, and pagination with cursor (including the limitation of no backward pagination). While it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, the context is clear given the sibling tools available.

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