get_performance_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/ idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value with what the payload contains (per-bucket counts and timing breakdowns) and where it comes from, which matters since there is no output schema. It doesn't cover limits like the max look-back or bucket caps in prose, but those live in the schema.

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?

A single dense sentence that is front-loaded with verb and resource, followed by the returned metrics and then the use case. No filler, no restatement of the name.

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 read-only, no-output-schema tool with fully described parameters, the description supplies the missing return-content context and the purpose framing. It's complete enough to call correctly; only minor cues (relation to the other performance-related siblings) are 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has its own description (defaults, maxes, examples), so the description adds little parameter-specific detail beyond the 'per bucket' framing. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?

States a specific verb and resource (get historical transaction performance as a time series) and enumerates the exact metrics returned (transaction count, avg/max response time, SQL time, business rule time per bucket). The source (transaction log) and the 'replacing legacy Performance dashboard graphs' note let an agent tell it apart from siblings like get_performance_analytics or trend_query without opening the schema.

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?

Frames the intended use ('chartable data for instance performance trends') and disambiguates via 'replacing the legacy Performance dashboard graphs'. It stops short of naming siblings such as get_performance_analytics or trend_query and saying when to prefer them, so no explicit exclusions are present.

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