get_stats_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the tool 'gets' records, implying a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, or potential side effects. This is minimal transparency.

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 concise sentence (13 words) that captures the tool's essence. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. While it could be slightly more structured, it avoids verbosity and is efficient.

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?

Despite 12 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is very brief. It does not explain the return format, pagination details, or what 'full city data' entails. Given the tool's complexity, the description is insufficiently complete for an AI to fully understand its usage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by summarizing them as 'filtering, sorting, and pagination' and mentioning 'full city data'. This provides context but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the 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 specifies the action ('Get'), resource ('detailed historical alert records'), and key features ('full city data, filtering, sorting, and pagination'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_active_alerts' (current alerts) and 'get_stats_summary' (aggregated statistics).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_active_alerts' for current alerts, 'get_stats_summary' for summaries). No explicit when-not-to-use or context for selection is given.

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