get_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral details such as default ordering, pagination semantics, and the difference between scheduled and sent messages, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise and well-structured: one line for the core purpose followed by a compact list of parameter explanations. Each line earns its place, with no redundant content. The parameter list is easy to scan and directly useful.

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 complexity (11 parameters) and that an output schema exists, the description covers all parameters and their nuances, including edge cases like 'ids' bypassing pagination and 'scheduled' for planned messages. It provides complete operational context without needing to describe return values.

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 fully compensates by explaining every parameter: limit range (1-200), offset_id pagination, min_id/max_id boundaries, from_user filtering, reverse ordering, ids without pagination, reply_to threads, filter_type allowed values, and scheduled flag. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's raw types and defaults.

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 clearly states the tool returns chat messages with a default new-to-old ordering. It identifies the specific resource (chat history) and default behavior, but does not differentiate from the sibling tool get_history_with_links, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 for retrieving chat messages with various filters and pagination, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_messages or get_history_with_links. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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