Order full point history (email)

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is set. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it consumes one bulk credit that is billed separately from API credits, and file preparation takes minutes — both critical for an agent deciding whether to invoke it. It stops short of saying how the job is tracked or what happens if the email fails.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the highest-value facts (scope and delivery first, then cost and latency). Nothing is padded and no sentence is redundant.

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 an asynchronous, email-delivered job with no output schema, the description covers what is produced, how it arrives, what it costs, and how long it takes. Remaining gap is failure/cancellation behavior and whether the call returns a tracking identifier, which an agent might want given idempotentHint=false.

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 100% and latency/date semantics for start and end are fully documented there. The description's only addition — that the default span is the whole record back to 1961 — restates the schema defaults rather than extending them.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — request the full daily point history for one location, delivered as CSV by email. The phrase "for one location" implicitly separates it from the area-oriented siblings (request_area_download, find_area) and from get_weather, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 "one location" scoping and the note that the default is the entire record since 1961 imply when this is the right call, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs request_area_download or estimate_area_download guidance, and no stated prerequisites or eligibility conditions.

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