get_user_attribute_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool queries admin events with UPDATE/ACTION operations, is scoped to users/{userId}, and does not show user-driven events. It also mentions default date range behavior, but does not explicitly declare it as read-only or safe, though implied.

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, beginning with a summary line followed by one paragraph of context and a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 has an output schema (not shown) and moderate complexity, the description covers scope, filtering, defaults, and differentiation from siblings. It provides enough information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 compensate. It explains all 5 parameters: username, date_from (format and default), date_to (format), max_results (default 100), and max_repr (0=omit, -1=full). This fully adds meaning beyond the 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 clearly states 'Get admin-side attribute change history for a single user' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from get_events by noting that this tool shows admin-initiated changes that do not surface in get_events.

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 explicitly says it's 'Intended for tracking custom attribute changes such as temp_password' and explains that get_events shows user-driven events, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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