list_history

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with these. It does add the endpoint and a list of query parameters, but it does not describe behavioral details like pagination behavior, result ordering semantics, or what data the history entries contain.

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 and front-loaded with the core verb and endpoint. The repeated 'Query parameter' lines are mildly redundant and low-value, but overall the structure is compact and not bloated.

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 having an output schema and safety annotations, the description is incomplete for a 10-parameter API call with zero schema descriptions. It does not explain what filters do, what event_type values exist, how sorting works, or how this endpoint differs from sibling history tools.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain the 10 parameters, but it merely repeats their names and labels each as a 'Query parameter.' It adds no meaning about accepted values, formats, or how the parameters interact.

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 clear verb and resource ('Read History') and gives the exact endpoint (GET /api/v3/history), so an agent knows what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate this from closely related siblings like list_history_movie and list_history_since.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_history_movie or list_history_since. No context is provided about typical use cases, filtering strategies, or when other history-related tools would be more appropriate.

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