get_status_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only adds that results are ordered chronologically, but does not explicitly state the tool is read-only, describe pagination, or mention any side effects or limitations. Compared to the update_drive example, this is a read operation, but the lack of explicit safety or scope details keeps the score low.

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 single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, target, and ordering. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary filler or repetition.

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 there is no output schema, the description should ideally clarify what the returned history contains (e.g., timestamps, statuses). It only says 'status change history' and 'ordered chronologically,' which is minimal but adequate for a simple tool. However, the lack of return format details or disambiguation from overlapping siblings leaves 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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter, but the description 'item_id parameter' adds no real meaning beyond the name. The tool description does not elaborate on item_id semantics, but the baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.

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 gets status change history for an item and is ordered chronologically. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from broad timeline tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_item_timeline.

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 usage when status history is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_item_timeline or get_updates. No alternative tools or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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