agency_revisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool computes diffs between consecutive daily snapshots and includes removed notices, which is useful, but it does not disclose output structure, pagination, ordering, default behavior, or any access/safety characteristics.

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 one vivid, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core concept efficiently. The word 'quietly' is stylistic filler, but the overall structure is compact and the key differentiator is placed at the end for impact.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and five optional parameters, the description should explain more about result shape, defaults, and how parameters combine. It explains the conceptual value of the tool but leaves an agent without enough operational detail to know what a typical response looks like or how to constrain a query effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 clearly identifies the tool as a field-level diff of consecutive daily snapshots for state agency data, with concrete examples of change types. It also distinguishes itself from any single-snapshot tool by stating that this history 'does not exist in any single-snapshot copy of the data,' which separates it from sibling tools.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need revision history across daily snapshots rather than current snapshot data. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools, state when not to use it, or provide decision criteria for choosing between this and alternatives.

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