list_history_since

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. However, it adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, sorting, or what history events are included. The only extra information is the endpoint path and parameter names, which are not behavioral traits.

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 text is short and front-loads the purpose and endpoint, which is good. However, the Args section is repetitive and nearly content-free, simply restating each parameter with the unhelpful label 'Query parameter'. It is compact but not efficiently informative.

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 reduce the burden, but an agent still cannot correctly construct a call because event_type is undefined and the relationship to list_history/list_history_movie is missing. The description is too thin to support confident, correct invocation despite the structured metadata.

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 0%, so the description needed to define each parameter. It only labels them as 'Query parameter', which adds slight value about location, but gives no meaning for date format, event_type object shape, or include_movie's effect. The event_type parameter is especially opaque since it is a free-form object.

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 says 'Read History.', which names a verb and a resource, but it never explains the 'since' filtering or the specific scope of this endpoint. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_history and list_history_movie, so an agent cannot tell why this variant exists.

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. It provides no exclusions, no context, and no mention of list_history or list_history_movie, leaving the selection decision entirely to the agent.

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