get_api_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the read-only safety profile. The description adds that the tool scans retail patches and filters for changes (appeared, disappeared, or changed structure), which is useful context, but it does not describe output ordering, pagination, or the precise meaning of 'changed structure'.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary action and scope. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only history tool with fully described parameters and safe annotations, the description adequately conveys the tool's scope and output (list of patches where changes occurred). It could optionally mention default version behavior or output format, but these are not critical gaps given the schema and annotations.

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?

With schema description coverage at 100%, each parameter already has meaningful documentation. The description reinforces the 'name' parameter by saying 'exact API' but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for a fully covered schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: to show retail patches where a single exact API appeared, disappeared, or changed structure. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('retail patches'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like diff_versions or list_versions by focusing on historical changes of one API rather than comparisons or version listings.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as diff_versions, compare_api, or lookup_api. The use case is implied by the description but no selection criteria or exclusions are stated, leaving the agent to infer when this is the right choice.

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