get_brand_history

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It states the tool 'gets history' and 'shows score trends,' which implies a read operation. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, required permissions, data freshness, or limitations like history depth. This is adequate for a simple retrieval but could be more transparent.

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 short sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds a clarifying detail about the output. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It tells what it does but not what the returned data looks like (e.g., format, time range, metrics). The agent lacks information to confidently process the result.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the 'brand' parameter. The tool description adds the context of 'history' and 'score trends,' but this does not enhance understanding of the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource 'analysis history for a specific brand'. It also mentions 'Shows score trends over time,' which adds specificity. The sibling tool analyze_brand suggests a different function (analysis vs history), so this tool is well-distinguished.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling analyze_brand. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative scenarios. The agent has to infer based on the name and description alone.

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