Find identifier history

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest and does add real behavior: include_historical surfaces superseded and void facts, and omitting type returns candidates instead of guessing. That is valuable non-obvious semantics. It still omits return shape, scoping, and pagination.

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?

Two dense sentences with the core lookup behavior front-loaded and parameter effects second. No filler, though phrases like 'returns candidates rather than guessing' are slightly cryptic for the space they occupy.

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 4-parameter read tool with no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description covers the search semantics but leaves farm_id meaning, candidate result shape, and any result limits unaddressed. Adequate for the core action, incomplete around the edges.

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%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It meaningfully explains type ('typed'), value ('string value'), and include_historical (superseded/void facts), but says nothing about farm_id scoping or the 50/128 length limits, leaving one parameter fully undocumented.

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 and resource: 'look up typed identifier observations by string value across event revisions.' That is concrete and distinguishes it from simple identifier lookups by emphasizing revision-spanning history. It stops short of naming the obvious sibling alternatives (find_animal_by_identifier, lookup_animal_by_eid), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

It implies when the tool is useful (recovering superseded/void facts via include_historical) and notes that an untyped search yields candidates, but it never explicitly contrasts this with find_animal_by_identifier or list_identifiers. Usage context is inferable rather than stated.

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