get_evolution

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It details output fields and event types, but does not mention ordering, pagination, data freshness, or whether all events are included. Some behavioral traits are left unspecified.

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 paragraph that front-loads the main purpose. It is reasonably concise and covers key aspects without unnecessary text.

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?

Given the simple schema and no output schema, the description provides details about return fields and event types, which is valuable. It conveys the tool's purpose and output structure, making it mostly complete for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% with entity_id described in the schema. The description adds no extra information about the parameter itself, only about the output. Baseline 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 returns a timeline of territorial changes (verb+resource) and lists specific event types (annexations, losses, etc.) and output fields (year, description, source, acquisition_method). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_event or full_timeline_for_entity.

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 explains what the tool does and mentions it is important for reconstructing historical arcs, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like entity_predecessors or full_timeline_for_entity. Usage context is implied but not definitive.

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