article_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses that renumbering is detected mechanically by identical text hash, and mentions validity intervals and lifecycle events. This goes beyond a simple 'get history' and provides meaningful behavioral detail, though it does not cover error conditions or response shape in depth.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core function and includes a clarifying question. Every phrase adds value, and there is no repetition or fluff.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (distinct texts, validity intervals, lifecycle events) and why to use it. It does not detail the exact output structure, but it gives enough context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and invoke it correctly given the parameter descriptions.

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 schema covers both parameters (work and anchor) with descriptions, and the tool description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond mentioning 'article/annex' which is already in the anchor description. Since schema description coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: it returns every distinct text a provision has had along with validity intervals and lifecycle events. It directly answers the question 'what did Article X say over its life / when did it change', distinguishing it from related tools like as_of or diff by focusing on historical versions.

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 explicit usage context: use this tool when you need the history of a provision's text or to know when it changed. It does not explicitly reference alternative tools or exclusions, but the 'answer to...' wording gives a clear when-to-use signal.

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