knowbe4_account_risk_score_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only mentions it retrieves risk score history but doesn't disclose pagination behavior details, response structure, whether there's a time range constraint, or whether the data is aggregated over users. For a read/retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves a meaningful transparency gap.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the purpose clearly and adds one contextual usage note. This is efficient and well-sized for a simple paginated list tool.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects) so the description doesn't need to be extensive. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and a meaningfully differentiated sibling set (user-level and group-level risk score history), the description could do slightly more to clarify the account-level scope and what distinguishes this from the other risk score history tools.

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%, with both parameters (page, per_page) documented with types, defaults, and bounds in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what's in the schema, but given full coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not clarify how pagination interacts with risk score history data.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Get the account-level risk score history over time.' It clearly identifies the resource (account-level risk score history) and the temporal scope (over time). It distinguishes from siblings like knowbe4_users_risk_score_history and knowbe4_groups_risk_score_history through the 'account-level' qualifier, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 notes it's 'Useful for tracking overall security posture improvement,' which provides some context for when to invoke it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools (such as the per-user or per-group risk score history variants). The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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