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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond it: results are ordered newest first, and each entry carries proof and diff links, with the kinds of facts enumerated. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or what an empty result looks like, but it is meaningfully richer than the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with what is returned, then enumerates fact types, ordering, and included links — no filler and nothing buried.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the returned items and their ordering, which is the main thing it must do. However, with zero schema coverage it should also explain the id's expected form and what limit does, and it omits both.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it only weakly implies that 'id' identifies the target record. The 'limit' parameter (1-100, presumably page size with an unknown default) is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters unexplained in both places.

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 names a specific resource — the recorded facts (versions, registry entries, package artifacts, tool descriptions) of a record — and scopes it as reading the history of one identifiable record. That implicitly distinguishes it from record_search (querying across records) and record_get (current state), though it never names those siblings or uses an explicit verb like 'list'.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing tells the agent to reach for this instead of record_get when it needs history, or instead of record_search when it has no id. The reader must infer both the trigger condition and the alternatives from the phrase 'of a record' alone.

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