get_contact_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool returns a JSON string and lists parameters, but omits details like whether it is read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling (e.g., if contact_id is null). This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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, consisting of two short sentences plus a clear parameter list with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. No extraneous words, and the structure aids quick comprehension.

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 an output schema (though not shown), the description adequately covers the return format as 'JSON string containing contact interaction history'. However, it lacks details on pagination behavior (e.g., what happens when limit is reached) or the effect of not providing a contact_id, leaving minor gaps.

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 description adds meaningful explanations for each parameter beyond the schema (e.g., 'Specific contact ID (optional)', 'Maximum number of history items', 'Number of items to skip for pagination'). Despite 0% schema coverage, the description effectively documents all three parameters.

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 'Get' and resource 'interaction history for contacts', directly conveying the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_contact' (which retrieves contact details) and 'get_job_contact_history' (which is job-specific).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_contact' or 'get_job_contact_history'. The use case is implied by the name and parameters but lacks explicit context or conditions.

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