get_users_by_id_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the GET method, the 'me' alias for the authenticated user, date formatting requirements, the watchnow value set, and detailed pagination clamping behavior.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and endpoint, then organized as a clear argument list. The watchnow enum is verbose but valuable. Some placeholder entries like 'Query parameter.' are terse but not wasteful, and the overall structure is scannable without filler.

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?

For a 16-parameter endpoint with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description reasonably covers auth, watchnow values, date formats, and pagination. However, it leaves the format/semantics of most filter parameters undocumented and does not mention sorting or how this endpoint relates to more specific history variants, so it is not fully complete for an agent trying to use all capabilities.

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 must compensate. It does provide substantive semantics for id, extended, watchnow, start_at, end_at, page, and limit, including exact watchnow values and pagination rules. However, many parameters such as genres, subgenres, years, ratings, start_date, end_date, runtimes, countries, and certifications are only labeled 'Query parameter.' with no value format or allowed syntax, leaving significant gaps.

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 opens with 'Get watched history,' a specific verb and resource, and also gives the exact endpoint 'GET /users/{id}/history/'. It clearly identifies what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling history endpoints like get_users_by_id_history_by_type_by_item_id or get_users_by_id_history_movies.

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?

The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling history endpoints. There is no mention that this fetches all watched history while other tools filter by type or item, and no explicit when-not-to-use instructions. An agent would have to infer the intended usage from the endpoint name.

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