get_claim_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Retrieves' implies a read operation and 'tracking updates and superseded values' conveys return semantics, but it omits pagination, ordering guarantees, and explicit read-only confirmation for a history tool.

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?

One tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the phrase 'tracking updates and superseded values' is slightly redundant with 'value transition history'.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is adequate: it names the resource and hints at the returned content (chronological transitions, superseded values). It does not describe the shape of the history or ordering details an agent might need.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines claimId fully. The description adds no format or meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb (Retrieves) and a well-defined resource: the chronological value transition history for a factual claim. This is clearly distinct from the contradiction-focused siblings and get_contradiction_history, though it never names those alternatives directly.

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 only says what the tool does; it gives no guidance on when to reach for it versus get_contradiction_history or the scan_* tools, and states no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the one-line purpose.

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