Warmup history by day

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds context the annotations do not: the OAuth-style scope requirement (accounts:read), a 500-entry result cap, UTC-based date grouping, and newest-first ordering. These are genuine behavioral facts that affect how the agent interprets and trusts the result. The only gap is not stating pagination or truncation behavior beyond the 500 cap.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the resource, then scope, then the endpoint, then the return shape. Almost nothing is wasted, though the opening 'Warmup history by day.' duplicates the title, and the endpoint line is arguably decorative rather than decision-relevant.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the definition supplies the missing return-value contract (grouped by UTC date, newest first, 500 entries) plus the access scope. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it or interpret its output is absent.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. However, the schema's own text is tautological ('Path parameter `id`.'), and the description only implicitly clarifies it via the GET /accounts/{id}/warmup-history path line – it never states plainly that id is the account identifier, which matters given siblings like get_campaign and get_audience that also take an id.

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 states a specific resource (warmup history) for a specific entity (/accounts/{id}), and characterizes the payload as warmup log entries grouped by UTC date, newest first. That is more than a restatement of the name and lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling get_account_warmup_status, though it never explicitly contrasts the two (status = current state vs. this = historical log).

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?

Usage is implied by the resource ('history' as opposed to a point-in-time status read) and it states the required API key scope, accounts:read. But it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never names get_account_warmup_status as the alternative for current-state queries, leaving the agent to infer the split.

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