get_purchase_history

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It lists all fields returned per record (paidDate, product, productId, country, platform, device, gross, net, status, isRefunded), which is valuable beyond the input schema. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get' and no side effects are mentioned, but the return-field disclosure compensates.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every phrase adds value. The first sentence states what it does, the second lists output fields and gives usage guidance. 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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields. It also provides usage context. However, it does not mention pagination or the constraint that recent is bounded by the limit parameter, though that is in the schema. Overall, it is adequately complete for a read-only list 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for all parameters (sort, limit, platform) with descriptions. The description does not add any semantics beyond what the schema says (e.g., 'recent' aligns with sort/limit defaults). Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 says 'Get recent individual purchases' with a specific verb and resource, and clarifies it returns granular purchase-level data. It distinguishes itself from sibling summary tools like get_sales_summary and get_product_sales by stating 'Use for detailed, purchase-level questions.'

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 context for when to use the tool: 'Use for detailed, purchase-level questions.' It implies not to use it for summary/aggregate questions but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it misses a 5.

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