timeline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool relies on publisher-asserted data and returns validity intervals and version keys, indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not discuss ordering, pagination behavior, or how to interpret the intervals, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 with a clear structure: a subject ('Every state a document has been in'), a colon explaining the contents ('validity intervals and version keys'), and a qualifier ('publisher-asserted'). Every word contributes to the meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description is concise but covers the core output type and data source. However, without annotations or an output schema, and given the presence of several sibling tools, the description does not fully clarify how this timeline differs or what a 'state' entails. It is adequate but leaves room for interpretation.

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?

All three parameters (work, limit, offset) have schema descriptions, giving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it only provides high-level context about the output. Since the schema already documents the parameters clearly, the description does not need to compensate.

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 communicates that the tool returns the historical states of a document, specifying validity intervals and version keys, and notes the data is publisher-asserted. Though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', the phrase 'Every state a document has been in' clearly implies the function. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on temporal states and version keys, though it does not explicitly name any alternative tool.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as provenance or as_of. The only usage hint appears in the schema's 'work' parameter ('Unknown document -> call search first'), but that is part of the structured parameter description, not the tool description itself. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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