get_score_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes output structure (per-date rows with overall scores and optional category columns) and granularity by range. It does not disclose potential limitations like empty data, rate limits, or auth needs, but it is reasonably transparent for a read-only query tool.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and data structure. It efficiently conveys key details, though the default range could be explicitly highlighted instead of implied.

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 no output schema, the description explains output structure well. It covers granularity, optional categories, and category naming. It lacks pagination or limit info but is adequate for a simple query tool with two optional parameters.

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%, and the description adds value beyond schema: it states the default range (3m), lists valid category names, and provides usage advice to limit categories. This extra context aids correct parameter selection.

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 retrieves a score time series with overall health_score and cultural_score per date, plus optional per-category columns. It specifies granularity based on range and distinguishes from siblings like get_current_status (current snapshot) and get_recent_activities (activity list).

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?

It advises to add only needed categories to keep output small, which guides parameter selection. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, though context signals imply it for time series vs. current state or recent activity.

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