Änderungshistorie durchsuchen

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds context about tracking creation/modification/deletion events. It does not disclose pagination behavior or result size limits, but the annotations cover the safety profile, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then a well-organized list of applications, and ends with concrete examples. It is somewhat long due to the app list, but the structure and examples make it readable and each section earns its place. Minor duplication with the schema's enum is acceptable.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, applications, and provides two example queries, which is sufficient for a read-only search tool with an output schema and good parameter descriptions. Slight concern: the description claims '30 total' applications while the schema enum provides 36, creating a minor inconsistency, but overall the tool is well-specified.

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 100%, with each parameter already described in detail. The tool description adds example queries showing combinations of applikation and date range, but these examples reinforce, rather than add new meaning, to the parameter semantics. Thus baseline 3 is warranted.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Search document change history' and explains it tracks changes to legal documents over time, showing when documents were created, modified, or deleted. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on the historical view across multiple applications, rather than specific document types.

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 says 'Use this tool to track changes to legal documents over time,' giving clear context for when to apply it. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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