scf_get_document_history

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, and the description reinforces this with 'read — viewer role' while adding meaningful behavioral detail about lifecycle transitions and version changes. It does not mention ordering or pagination, but for a simple read tool with no output schema the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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 sentence front-loads the core purpose and then packs in the specific information the history returns. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it states the purpose, the auth role, and the response content. An agent can decide when to call it and what to expect in return.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with sourced descriptions (org_id from scf_list_organizations, document_id from scf_list_documents), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, keeping this at the baseline 3.

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 and resource ('Get a document's version and transition history') and enumerates exactly what the history covers: who moved it, when, why, and what changed per generation. This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like scf_get_document or scf_get_audit_log.

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 gives clear context by marking the operation as a read for viewer-role users, so an agent knows it is a safe read-only retrieval of document history. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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