get_version_history

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the output fields (including the key 'substantive' field), the date range limitation, and the accepted input types. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand what to expect without contradicting the read-only nature.

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 well-structured and concise: first sentence states the core purpose, second paragraph explains the key field, third mentions the date limitation and parameter types. Every sentence adds meaningful information with no fluff or redundancy, making it easy to scan.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return format. It covers the critical 'substantive' field, the date limitation, and input types. However, it does not explain how to specify which CFR part/section/subpart is being queried (e.g., whether all are optional but at least one is needed). This is a minor gap but not fatal, as the sibling tools like get_cfr_structure provide 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does mention that part/subpart/section accept int or string, which is useful. However, it does not explain which parameter is required (if any), how they interact, or the meaning of title_number (default 48). The tool is for a specific CFR citation but lacks guidance on constructing a valid query, leaving ambiguity.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves version history for a CFR section, subpart, or part. It identifies the returned data (dates, amendment info, substantive/editorial change) and explicitly explains the 'substantive' field, distinguishing this tool from siblings like compare_versions (which compares specific versions) and get_latest_date (which only returns a date).

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 provides clear context: it states the history only goes back to January 2017, implying when not to use it (for pre-2017 changes it won't be helpful). It also explains that the 'substantive' field indicates regulatory changes. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to choose this over similar ones like find_recent_changes, though the scope difference is implicitly clear.

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