list_history_series

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior Reward. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination, filtering semantics, or effects of parameters. The only additional detail is that parameters are query parameters, which is a minor structural note, not a behavioral trait.

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 highly concise and front-loaded with the action 'Read History.' The parameter list is clean and tidy, with no fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool, though it sacrifices essential semantic detail for brevity.

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 5 optional parameters with zero schema descriptions and no parameter explanations, the description is incomplete for correct invocation. The output schema exists and annotations cover safety, but input semantics are missing. An agent would need external knowledge or guessing to use this tool effectively.

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 each parameter's meaning and allowed values. It only labels them as 'Query parameter,' which adds location info but no semantics. Parameter names like event_type and include_series remain ambiguous, leaving the agent without enough information to construct a correct request.

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' with endpoint /api/v3/history/series. It conveys the tool's basic function, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like list_history or list_history_since, relying instead on the tool name to imply the 'series' scoping.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives, when to use this tool over list_history or list_history_since, or any conditions for choosing it. It merely states the endpoint and lists parameters.

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