get_job_contact_history

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

No annotations are provided, so description must carry behavioral info. It states returns JSON string but does not declare read-only nature, auth requirements, or potential side effects. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Description is concise with clear Args and Returns sections. No unnecessary words, each sentence adds value. Perfectly sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 simplicity and existence of output schema, description is mostly complete. Parameter docs are thorough. Could briefly mention what 'interaction history' entails but not required.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage) but the description fully documents all three parameters: job_id required, limit with default, offset for pagination. Adds significant meaning beyond schema.

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 it gets interaction history for contacts on a specific job, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_contact_history and get_job_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 implies when to use (for contact interaction history per job) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Sibling tool names suggest differentiation but description doesn't mention them.

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