get_optimization_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's main behavioral addition is the optional filter and the return-field breakdown. This is useful context beyond the annotation, though it omits potential pagination or ordering behavior, which is acceptable for a simple history retrieval.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose and return content, the second explains the optional filter. It is front-loaded, to-the-point, and contains no redundant information.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, read-only, output schema present), the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to narrow results. No critical contextual information is missing for a retrieval tool of this type.

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 coverage is 100%, with both portfolio_id and simulation_batch_id already described in the input schema. The description adds a slight semantic link (simulation_batch_id to 'beta computation') but does not significantly enhance the schema's parameter documentation.

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 'past portfolio optimization results', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like optimize_portfolio and get_efficient_frontier. It also enumerates the exact contents of each entry, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 usage context: it retrieves historical optimization results, and the optional simulation_batch_id filter provides guidance for narrowing results. It does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, but the read-only nature and reference to 'past results' make the context clear.

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