dq-get-check-history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the return type (time-series of status) but omits details such as how status is defined, error handling for missing check, aggregation behavior, or the effect of the limit parameter on the result window.

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?

Single sentence, no extraneous words, front-loaded with the key action and scope. Every word earns its place.

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, no annotations, and three parameters with partial schema descriptions, the description is too minimal. It fails to specify the time-series structure, pagination, error states, or whether the status is raw or aggregated. This is inadequate for a data retrieval tool.

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 description coverage is low (33%). The description adds context for checkName ('one check_name's status') but does not explain the meaning of 'status' or the role of days and limit beyond the schema defaults and constraints. The days parameter is implied by 'last N days' but lacks precision.

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 specific verb 'time-series' and resource 'check_name's status' with clear scope 'across the last N days'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like dq-list-checks (lists checks) and dq-score-trend (score trends).

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 historical status of a single check but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Sibling tool names offer implicit differentiation, but explicit guidance is absent.

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