get_user_attribute_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool queries admin events scoped to users/{userId} with UPDATE/ACTION operations, explains default date-from behavior, and clarifies max_repr semantics. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or pagination, but it gives strong operational detail for a read-only query tool.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a brief context paragraph explaining why the tool exists relative to get_events, and a compact Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to scan.

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 there is an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, scope, operation types, defaults, parameter semantics, and the key differentiator from get_events. This is complete for a focused admin-history query tool.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. The Args section documents all five parameters with practical semantics: username is exact email, date_from defaults to last 24h, max_results defaults to 100, and max_repr values (0 omit, -1 full) are explained. This goes well beyond the bare 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get admin-side attribute change history for a single user.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by contrasting with get_events, which only surfaces user-driven events, making the tool's unique purpose immediately understandable.

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 gives clear usage context by stating it is 'Intended for tracking custom attribute changes' written by admin API and explicitly notes these do not surface in get_events. It provides a when-to-use rationale and names the relevant alternative, though it does not exhaustively enumerate when not to use the tool.

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