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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is returned (old and new values, first-known date), the filtering behavior, the no-filter aggregate mode, and instructs the agent to cite the returned URL. It does not mention error behavior, authentication, or explicitly note that it is read-only, but the core behavior is transparent enough.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the filter list is compact, and the usage directive and citation instruction are stated directly. Every sentence 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers return values, filtering, the no-filter behavior, and the intended use. For a read-oriented retrieval tool, this is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly without missing critical context.

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%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by naming all four filters and, more importantly, explaining the non-obvious behavior when all filters are omitted: you get the full record and a per-series revision summary. This is extra context an agent would not infer from the schema alone.

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 and resource: get every restatement of a published figure, and enumerates the returned fields (old value, new value, first-known date). This clear scope distinguishes it from siblings like get_change_events, get_vintages, or get_freshness without needing to open the schema.

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 gives an explicit use case: use this tool to judge whether a recent print needs a revision caveat. It also clarifies that omitting filters returns the full record and per-series revision summary. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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