Get Historical Data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavior: it returns hourly data points for temperature and flow, which sets expectations for granularity and variables. It does not mention limitations such as date-range caps, time zones, units, or data availability, which would be useful for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

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?

Three short sentences, with the core action first, use cases second, and return shape third. There is no filler, no repetition of schema details, and every sentence 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?

The tool is simple: three fully documented required parameters and an output schema, so the description does not need to restate return values. It provides enough selection context through use cases. It would be more complete with a pointer to sibling tools like fetch_history or historical_chart for different historical needs, and with a note on any time or units assumptions.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage, documenting city, start, and end with format examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond confirming the returned data is hourly temperature and flow. Thus no bonus above baseline is warranted.

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 names a specific operation ('Get historical time-series data') and clarifies the resource scope: hourly temperature and flow data. It also lists concrete use cases such as trend analysis and statistical queries, so an agent can distinguish it from current-condition and forecast tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from similarly named siblings like fetch_history or historical_chart, so it stops short of a 5.

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 second sentence explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this for trend analysis, comparisons with past conditions, and statistical queries.' This gives clear selection context versus current-conditions or forecast tools. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative siblings such as compare_cities or fetch_history, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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