get_wear_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly states 'Read', indicating a read-only operation. It also adds conditionality ('where a cost attribute exists'), which warns the agent that cost-per-wear is not always returned. It does not mention potential edge cases like empty results or default date ranges, but for a read tool the core effect is disclosed.

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 one clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Read the wear log'). The list of output items makes it longer, but every phrase adds relevant information, and there is no wordiness or repetition.

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 there is no output schema, the agent cannot verify the response shape from structured data, and the description does not describe the exact structure. It says what is returned but not in what form (e.g., array vs. nested object), nor does it clarify what happens with the date range or garment_id filters. It is adequate but not fully self-reliant.

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 describes the three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it does not explain how since/until/garment_id interact or affect the return, so it does not meaningfully enrich parameter semantics.

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 begins with the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource 'the wear log'. It then enumerates the distinct outputs it returns (individual entries, per-garment totals, first/last worn, never-worn items, cost-per-wear), which makes it easy to distinguish from get_garment (garment details) and log_wear (writing a wear entry).

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 the tool is for reading wear history, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like log_wear or search_garments. It names no exclusions or 'when-not-to-use' conditions, so guidance is only implied.

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