change_history_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are "bounded" and field-level, which is useful context, but it does not explain how pagination works, what permissions are required, or what "bounded" means beyond the limit/offset parameters.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The key distinction, reading details for one entry, appears immediately.

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 simple read-only detail tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the resource and the entry-level scope. The main missing context is how to obtain the required detailId from the sibling change_history 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 100%, so the schema already explains all five parameters including profile, adAccountId, detailId, limit, and offset. The description adds no syntax, constraints, or meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Read ... field-level details for one change-history entry") and makes clear this is a detail-level read scoped to a single entry, which distinguishes it from the sibling change_history listing tool without naming it explicitly.

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?

It implies the tool is for inspecting one existing change-history entry, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and does not name the sibling change_history tool that would be used to find the detailId.

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