get_recommendation_history

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that 'shortlisted explanations are null by construction,' which is a useful output detail, but it does not disclose read-only nature, whether it has side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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, short sentence, which is appropriately sized for a simple tool. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be more structured by including explicit parameter info, but the brevity itself is not a problem.

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?

The tool has two parameters and a required one, but missing parameter explanations and usage guidance make it incomplete. The output schema exists but is not described in the description; still, the description should at least mention what 'runs' contain. Overall, an agent cannot use this tool correctly without additional context.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no prose for parameters. The description does not explain the meaning of 'audience' or 'limit', nor does it clarify the enum values 'primary' and 'shared.' The agent is left to guess the semantics.

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 uses a clear verb ('Return') and a resource ('recent runs'), but the noun 'runs' is ambiguous without context. It is likely recommendation runs given the siblings, but this is not stated. It does distinguish itself from siblings by focusing on history, but not explicitly.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool relative to alternatives. There is no mention of which sibling would be appropriate instead, nor any condition for using this tool over others.

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