get_job_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'return recent executions' and does not describe any side effects, limitations, or operational characteristics (e.g., read-only, pagination, cost). This is a minimal statement that leaves behavior largely opaque.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundancy, front-loading the core purpose. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing essential context, but for conciseness alone it is effective and avoids wasted words.

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 two parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which is unknown), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter usage, any behavioral nuances, or how the output relates to the tool's purpose. An agent would need to infer too much to call this 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%, yet the description does not compensate by explaining job_name or days. It does not mention that job_name is required or that days controls the lookback period. The description adds no meaning to the parameters beyond the schema's bare structure.

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 the tool returns recent executions for an ETL job, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_job_status (current status) and get_job_logs (logs), so an agent can differentiate without further information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention get_job_status or get_job_logs, nor when one would prefer history over status or logs. There is no exclusions or context that would help an agent pick this tool.

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