clm_get_shipment_event_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so no safety contradiction exists. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: output is a chronological history and the accepted entity can be a shipment or a related connected entity. This is useful but does not go into deeper operational details like pagination or filtering.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the action, the resource, the entity scope, and the ordering in under twenty words.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential contextual facts: what is retrieved, for which entity types, and in what order. The output schema can carry return-value details, and annotations cover idempotence and read-only safety.

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 100%, and the item_id parameter is already described as 'The shipment (or related entity) id, as a UUID.' The tool description largely repeats this same scope ('shipment or related connected entity') and adds no new format, constraints, or usage semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' with the resource 'audit/event log history', and adds the ordering trait 'ordered chronologically'. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar sibling tools like clm_get_shipment_timeline or clm_get_shipment_comments.

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 implies the tool is appropriate when audit/event log history is needed and notes it applies to 'a shipment or related connected entity'. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative sibling tools, leaving selection vs similar getters to inference.

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