Jury duty history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the time-window scoping but does not disclose what the returned history contains, how records are ordered, or whether pagination applies. No contradiction with 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key window constraint. There is no filler or redundant content beyond the schema values, which are brief and acceptable.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description is mostly adequate: annotations cover safety, schema covers parameters, and the purpose is clear. However, with no output schema and no explicit routing among the many jury-duty sibling tools, a bit more context about expected return data or when not to use this tool would make it fully complete.

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 input schema already fully documents the 'days' parameter with type, default, minimum, maximum, and a descriptive sentence. The description merely repeats the default and max values without adding new semantic meaning, so it stays at the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('jury duty allowance usage history') with a clear time window ('past N days'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like tribeunal_jury_duty_allowance, which likely returns current allowance, and tribeunal_jury_duty_status or dashboard.

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 context of retrieving historical usage is clear, but the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over siblings such as tribeunal_jury_duty_allowance or tribeunal_jury_duty_status. Usage guidance is implied by the word 'history' rather than stated with alternatives or exclusions.

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