ch_company_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: newest-first ordering, inclusion of full publication text and changed-fields lists, and the auditor/liquidator exclusion rule. No contradiction with 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?

Two dense sentences: the first front-loads the resource, ordering, and content; the second handles the exclusion and sibling pointer. Every clause carries meaning, with no filler or repetition.

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 list tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers scope, ordering, what is included in output (full text and changed fields), what is excluded, and which sibling to use instead. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 100%; uid, limit, and since all have their own descriptions. The description does not add parameter-level detail such as date format or default limit, but the schema already documents these, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 precise scope: the company's own SHAB publications, newest first, with a concrete list of event types (registration, officer changes, name/seat/address/capital changes, liquidation, bankruptcy, deletion). It explicitly differentiates itself from ch_company_mentions by noting what is left out, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Tells the agent when to use this tool ('the company's own commercial register publications') and explicitly names the alternative for the excluded case: 'see ch_company_mentions for those.' It even specifies the exclusion condition (company appears only as auditor or liquidator of another company), which is strong routing guidance.

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