list_history_since

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds only the GET endpoint, which merely repeats what the annotations imply. It discloses no behavioral traits such as how far back history is retained, result ordering, or how event_type shapes the outcome.

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 short, front-loaded with the purpose line, and contains no filler. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness — it is mostly generated boilerplate with no informational density.

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 output schema and annotations remove the need to document return values and safety, but the core semantics are still missing: what 'since' filters, whether the two optional parameters combine or override, and what a history event looks like. The description is far from complete for a filtering tool.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate, but it only labels both parameters as 'Query parameter.' This adds the minor fact that they live in the query string, yet it omits the date format for 'date' and the expected structure of the 'event_type' object — the semantics an agent actually needs.

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?

"Read History" is essentially a restatement of the tool name with the distinguishing 'since' qualifier dropped. It does not explain what history is being listed or that this tool filters events after a given date, so it fails to differentiate from siblings like list_history and list_history_indexer.

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?

There is no guidance whatsoever on when to choose this tool over list_history, list_history_indexer, or other list_* siblings. No use cases, exclusions, or alternative routing are mentioned.

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