get_asset_work_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are 'complete' and 'sorted by date', which adds behavioral context. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, the impact of the limit parameter, or any side effects (though it is clearly a read operation). The absence of annotation support makes the description only partially transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by use cases. There is no redundant language, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and applicability.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns (full maintenance history) and its ordering. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, though it could explicitly mention that the result is a list of work orders and that limit applies to that list. Minor gaps exist but are not critical.

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 both parameters are already well-documented (assetnum and limit). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain how limit interacts with the 'complete history' claim or clarify sorting order. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('complete maintenance history for a specific asset'), and explicitly contrasts with general work-order tools by scoping to a single asset. It also mentions use cases (trend analysis, MTTR, failure patterns) that differentiate it from siblings like get_failure_analysis or get_work_orders.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (trend analysis, MTTR, failure pattern identification) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It provides use cases without exclusions, so it falls short of a full 5.

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