Query filing history

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

Beyond the readOnly annotation, the description reveals that the data is local, totals-only, and not proof of current e-Service state, giving useful behavioral context.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; each sentence adds meaning, and the caveat is included without clutter.

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 the simple read-only nature, the description is adequate, but it lacks any detail about the returned history structure or how the parameters affect the result.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions, and the description does not explain 'period' or 'employer'. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but format, defaults, and semantics are left unspecified.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('local totals-only audit history'), and adds a clear caveat that it is not proof of current e-Service state, which distinguishes its purpose.

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?

Implies usage for reviewing local audit totals and warns against treating it as current state, but does not explicitly mention when to prefer or avoid it relative to sibling tools.

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