get_article_history

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming safe read operation. Description adds crucial behavioral context not in annotations: the premium/auth requirement and specific output format (amendments with dates and change summaries). No contradictions 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 sentences with zero waste: first sentence front-loads purpose and output description, second states the critical premium constraint. Every word earns its place; no redundant repetition of annotations or schema details.

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 2-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description adequately compensates for missing output schema by describing return contents (amendments, dates, summaries) and notes the premium restriction. Could enhance by mentioning pagination or volume limits for articles with extensive histories.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage (regulation and article parameters fully documented). Description implies targeting a 'specific article' but does not elaborate on parameter formats beyond the schema, which satisfies the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' with resource 'full version timeline' and clarifies scope with 'showing all amendments with dates and change summaries.' Distinguishes from sibling get_article (current state) by emphasizing historical timeline and from diff_article by offering complete chronology rather than comparison.

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?

Provides prerequisite context with 'Premium feature — requires Ansvar Intelligence Portal,' indicating auth/licensing constraints. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_article (current text) or get_recent_changes (cross-regulation updates), requiring the agent to infer from 'full version timeline.'

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