timeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals useful behavior: matching claims, assertion order, and showing which claims superseded others. However, it does not mention side-effect status, authentication requirements, or return format, so some behavioral ambiguity remains.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds behavior and usage guidance without filler or repetition. 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?

For a simple two-parameter, read-style tool with no output schema, the description provides solid coverage: purpose, mechanism, and when-to-use. It lacks explicit return value details and limit behavior, but given the low complexity, it is reasonably 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It conceptually references 'subject' but gives no format or expected values, and 'limit' is completely ignored. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's bare parameter names.

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 what the tool does: show how belief about a subject changed over time. It adds specificity with 'matching claims in assertion order, showing which superseded which,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'conflicts' by focusing on temporal evolution. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists' and does not directly name sibling alternatives.

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 explicitly gives usage context: 'Use when an answer may have changed rather than merely being unknown.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate. It does not mention exclusions or explicitly compare to sibling tools, but the guidance is clear enough for a 4.

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