Heat Score history

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

Annotations already declare the safe, idempotent, closed-world read profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context annotations do not carry: the data source (public daily history), the default range behavior, and the 'auto picks the finest that fits 400 points' constraint — a meaningful disclosure about result granularity.

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?

Compact and front-loaded, with the resource named first and the parameter behaviors ordered by importance. The opening 'Heat Score history from the public daily history' is slightly awkward and could be tightened, but there is no wasted sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still notes that 'a summary covers the whole range'. For a 3-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; the only gap is the absence of guidance on when this history differs from the sibling indicator/market tools.

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 already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description genuinely extends the schema: it explains 'from'/YYYY-MM-DD requirement, the 'to' default, and what 'auto' actually does (finest interval fitting 400 points), which the enum description 'Point size (default auto)' does not convey.

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 states a clear resource (Heat Score history) and verb (retrieve from the public daily history), which is specific enough to act on. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the siblings explain_indicator or get_market_snapshot, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage conditions are implied rather than stated: the required 'from' and the 'to' default communicate the expected range pattern, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-a-sibling guidance or prerequisite/exclusion language.

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