get_provision_history

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions authentication requirements but does not state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or describe any limits or pagination behavior.

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?

Three short sentences convey the core purpose and an important prerequisite. Concise and front-loaded, though could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points).

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?

Adequate for a simple read tool: it explains what it returns (version timeline with dates) and the auth requirement. However, without an output schema, it would benefit from describing the output format or structure (e.g., list of version objects with date fields).

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (SFS number format and provision reference). The description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, but with 100% coverage, a baseline 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?

Clearly states it returns the full version timeline for a provision of a Swedish statute, showing all historical versions with validity dates. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_provision (current version) and diff_provision (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?

Only mentions that it is a premium feature requiring the Ansvar Intelligence Portal, but does not provide guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., use this for history, get_provision for current text).

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