Get birth history evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: presumed sire evidence is a review proposal and never DNA confirmation or an automatic parentage write, which tells the agent the returned data is advisory and has no side effect on parentage. It stops short of noting pagination or result size.

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 sentences, no filler, and the scoping information leads. The second sentence is slightly dense and the 'review proposal / never DNA confirmation' clause could be tighter, but every sentence carries weight.

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 evidence tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description adequately frames both what is read and the interpretive status of the sire evidence. Missing only secondary details like result volume or ordering.

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 only 33% (farm_id is the sole documented parameter). The description implies dam and birth-date scoping ('for a dam/birth date'), which maps to the required params, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema's uuid and date patterns. Adequate but not compensating for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific read verb and concretely unpacks the resource: 'dated exposures, recorded historical membership and movement comparisons for a dam/birth date.' An agent knows this is a read of derived birth evidence scoped to a dam + date. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_birth_source_evidence, leaving the boundary between the two evidence tools to inference.

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 'use this when' clause and no reference to alternatives such as get_birth_source_evidence, get_birth_event, or list_birth_events. The closest thing to guidance is the caveat that presumed sire evidence is a review proposal, which describes the nature of the data rather than when to reach for this tool.

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