get_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that sensitive fields are masked in both the before and after snapshots, which is real behavioral context an agent could not get from the schema, but it says nothing about permissions, pagination, or how masking interacts with the reveal flag.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than discipline.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but for a four-parameter history tool with no annotations and no parameter documentation the description leaves too much undefined. Filtering semantics, the meaning of reveal, and default behavior are all absent.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints at masking (relevant to reveal) but never explains limit, table, or row_id, leaving all four parameters semantically bare.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Read change history") plus a distinguishing trait (field-sensitive masking of before/after snapshots), which separates it from query_rows and the mutation siblings. It stops short of naming any sibling, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says whether to use this instead of query_rows for auditing, or when to scope by table or row_id. The agent must infer the intended situations from the name alone.

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