get_reading_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the default data scope, the effect of include_reconstructed, the reconstructed date range, and the existence of the long-term archive. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or return shape, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds meaningful context about ordering, defaults, reconstructed data, or archival scope.

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-history tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the important decision factors: ordering, default data, reconstructed rows, and the public archive. It could mention limit behavior explicitly, but the schema already describes limit and include_reconstructed well.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by clarifying that daily published readings are the default, that include_reconstructed adds month-end context rows back to 2019, and that the full monthly record is archived separately. This enriches the parameter semantics, especially for include_reconstructed.

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 identifies the tool as returning past Gold Barometer readings and specifies the ordering ('oldest first'). The phrase 'Past ... readings' distinguishes it from the sibling get_current_reading tool by scope and time horizon, making the tool's purpose immediately apparent.

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 explicit guidance on the default behavior ('Daily published readings by default') and when to use the include_reconstructed flag for month-end context rows. It also points to the public archive for monthly records back to 1971, signaling when this tool is not the right source.

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