Get Entity History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, which covers the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it costs 5 credits, requires authentication, returns results newest first, and supports pagination. This is exactly the kind of context (auth, cost, ordering) the rubric encourages.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and key output details, followed by cost/auth and the intended use case. Every sentence contributes, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Considering the absence of an output schema, the description discloses the return fields (timestamp, name, status), ordering, pagination, cost, auth, and intended use. It does not cover error cases or what happens if the entity does not exist, but for a read-only, annotated tool this is adequate and nearly 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 100% (all three parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description mentions pagination, which indirectly relates to limit/offset, but it does not add specific parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. No need for compensation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('chronological verification snapshots recorded for an entity'). It lists the fields (timestamp, name, status), ordering (newest first), and pagination, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_entity (current state) and search_entities.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use it to see how a company's status or details have changed over time.' This provides clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names imply that get_entity is for current state, giving implicit differentiation.

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