customers_history

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe read-only nature, and the description adds the return structure '{history[], pagination}' which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose details like ordering, default behavior, or any constraints beyond what the schema already covers. The description adds some context but not rich behavioral insight.

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 compact: two sentences, first defining purpose, second defining return shape. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 read-only log tool with 6 optional parameters fully described in the schema, the description gives the purpose and return shape, which is sufficient. It doesn't explain the field-change entry structure, but that's implied and not critical for selection. Sibling differentiation is clear, and annotations handle safety.

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 100%, so the parameters are fully documented. The description itself doesn't elaborate on parameters, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the semantic load. No additional value is provided beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Customer field-change log', which is a specific resource distinct from sibling tools like orders_history. It also states the intended use for 'growth/churn signals and incremental sync', making the purpose unmistakable despite lacking an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list'.

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 growth/churn analysis and incremental sync, which provides context for when to use this tool. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough to differentiate from list_customers or get_customer. A more explicit comparison to orders_history would earn a 5.

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