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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: deterministic ordering ("oldest first") and the content shape (certified revisions linked by supersedes). However, it omits whether the call is read-only by contract, what happens for a record with no revision history, and any pagination or size limits.

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?

Two tight sentences with no waste; the return semantics are front-loaded and the usage hint follows. Every clause 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return, and it does so usefully (lineage, supersedes relations, ordering). It is complete enough to invoke correctly for a 1-param read tool, though edge cases like empty history are unaddressed.

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% and there is a single required record_id param, so the schema already documents the parameter (including an example). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get the full revision lineage for a record") and immediately distinguishes it from siblings by describing exactly what it returns (superseded/supersedes relationships, oldest first). An agent can tell this apart from get_record or search_records without opening a 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?

Explicitly routes usage with "Use after get_record or search_records to see how a rule or permit record changed over time," naming the alternative tools and the scenario. It covers when to use but offers no exclusion (e.g., when this yields nothing and get_record is sufficient).

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