List Analysis History

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by stating the return format (paginated list with id, platform, username, status, date) and pagination behavior, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 concise (three sentences plus args list) and well-structured with bullet points. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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 no output schema, the description explains return fields adequately. However, it misses pagination metadata (e.g., total count) and omits 'pending' in status list. Overall sufficient for a list tool with good annotations.

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 of parameters is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats defaults and enum values already in the schema, but provides no new semantic insight. It also omits 'pending' from the status enum (schema includes it), a minor inaccuracy.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'past influencer analyses', with pagination. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like influiq_get_analysis (single analysis) and influiq_start_analysis (start new analysis) by focusing on history listing.

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 implies usage for listing past analyses with filters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., use get_analysis for a single analysis). No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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