get_customer_tier_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the API endpoint (GET) and the return structure (dict with customer_id, total_changes, history[]), which is meaningful behavioral context. It could mention error handling or permissions, but for a simple read operation it is adequate.

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 well-organized into a one-line summary, purpose, API call, and return structure. Each section is brief and informative with no redundancy, making it easy to parse.

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?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description compensates by clearly documenting the return structure and referencing a companion tool (list_membership_tiers) for tier name mapping. This makes it practically complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 already provides 100% coverage for customer_id ('客戶內部 ID'). The description adds no additional constraints or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves a customer's membership tier change history, with the purpose of tracking upgrades/downgrades and reasons. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_membership_tiers, which lists tiers rather than history.

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 explicitly advises using list_membership_tiers to map tier names, providing practical usage context. It does not mention when not to use the tool, but the purpose is clear enough for a simple read-only lookup.

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