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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the tool is safe to call. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the data is derived-graph data, requires an API key, and is subject to a monthly allowance while the legislative text is free. This helps the agent anticipate access constraints.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states exactly what the tool does, and the second sentence adds the key access condition. There is no filler or repetition of the schema or annotations.

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 read-only history tool with two well-documented parameters, the description provides enough context to select and invoke it. It covers purpose and access constraints. There is no output schema, but the description's phrase 'prior and successor versions' adequately conveys what the result will contain, though a bit more detail on the returned structure could make it fully complete.

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 provides 100% description coverage for both parameters, including examples of eId formats and ELI URIs. The description does not add new parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but the schema itself is sufficient, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns 'prior and successor versions of one provision across consolidations' and explains the purpose ('how the text got to its current form'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lookup_provision or provision_context, which would not focus on version history.

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 clearly communicates the intended use case: retrieving the version history of a single provision. It also adds a prerequisite by noting that derived-graph data requires an API key on a signed-in account. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, 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.