Schedule history (Pro)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It conveys a read-only audit-log operation and states exactly what will be returned: every generated period, invoice number, dates, amount, and PDF path. It does not cover licensing/Pro requirements or error cases, but the core behavior is clearly 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 one focused sentence that front-loads 'audit log for one schedule' and then compresses the return fields into a clear colon-delimited list. Every clause adds information; there is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter, low-complexity read tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it names the schedule scope and the returned fields. An agent can select and call the tool correctly with a schedule id; missing pagination or exact JSON shape is not essential here.

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?

The schema only defines a required string id with no description, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'for one schedule' tells the agent that id refers to the schedule whose history should be retrieved, which is the essential semantic for this single-parameter tool.

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 resource as one schedule's audit log and enumerates the returned contents—generated periods, invoice number, dates, amount, and PDF path—so an agent can understand it is a historical read. It does not use an explicit action verb such as 'get' or 'list,' and it does not explicitly contrast with sibling schedule tools like schedule_get or schedule_upcoming.

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 offers no guidance on when to use schedule_history rather than schedule_get, schedule_upcoming, or schedule_list. It implies a schedule id is needed by saying 'for one schedule,' but it gives no explicit context, prerequisites, or alternative routing.

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