get_count_history_with_timestamp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by specifying the READ-ONLY nature, pagination (up to 50 results), the exclusive timestamp semantics, and the HTTP method. No contradictions.

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 moderately concise, with clear sections: emoji/prefix, purpose, pagination detail. It is front-loaded, though the repeated 'READ-ONLY' and emoji could be streamlined.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should clarify the return format. While it mentions 'result counts', it does not specify the structure of the response (e.g., array of objects with count and timestamp). This leaves ambiguity for the agent.

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 100% with both parameters described in detail. The description restates the schema's info about exclusive timestamp and page size, but does not add new meaning beyond the structured data.

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 'retrieve', the resource 'result counts for the given segment', and the constraint 'without an AdditionalCriteria'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_count_history_by_segment_id.

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 mentions pagination and exclusive timestamp, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_count_history_by_segment_id or get_recent_count_history. Usage context is implied but not clearly differentiated.

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