dq-get-check-history

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

No annotations are present, so description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions time-series and days but lacks details on pagination (limit parameter), data freshness, or any side effects. The description does not compensate for missing 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 a single sentence, concise but overly brief. It misses important details that could be included without excessive length.

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 four parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, how days and limit interact, or how extractFields works.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the description adds no extra meaning to parameters. The schema provides a detailed description for checkName, but days, limit, and extractFields are not elaborated in the description.

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 it provides a time-series of one check's status over days, distinguishing from siblings like dq-failed-checks-by-dataset or dq-score-trend. However, it does not explicitly define 'status' and relies on the tool name for the verb 'get'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as dq-list-checks or dq-score-snapshot. The description does not provide any context for selection among siblings.

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