get_account_risk_score_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It transparently describes that the tool retrieves data (read-only) and explains the default time frame and optional full history. No destructive behavior or additional requirements are mentioned, which is acceptable for a simple retrieval tool.

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 (two clauses) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word serves a purpose without any redundancy.

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 simple tool with one optional boolean parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the essential aspects: what it does and the key behavioral nuance (time frame). No additional context is necessary.

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% for the single parameter 'full', which is well-documented. The description text reinforces the parameter's meaning but adds no new information beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 does 'Get account risk score history' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_user_risk_score_history' by targeting 'account' rather than 'user'.

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 clear guidance on when to use (get risk score history) and includes an option for full history vs. 6-month default. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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