evidence_get_record_changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get the change history' clearly implies a read-only retrieval, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, identifier resolution behavior, or whether an empty history yields an error. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical translation adds minor value and does not harm clarity. It earns its place by communicating the action and scope efficiently.

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 schema requires only 'evidence' and allows id and kod to be null, yet the description insists this tool works on a single record without explaining that one of id or kod must be supplied. This is a significant invocation gap: an agent might call it with only the evidence name and get an ambiguous or failed request. The presence of an output schema does not resolve this selection problem.

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 100%, so each parameter already has a meaningful description. The tool description adds only the context that the history belongs to a 'single record,' which is useful but does not substantially clarify parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('Get') and resource ('change history of a single record'), making the tool's core function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling changes_get, but the phrase 'of a single record' adds useful scoping.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as changes_get or evidence_get. There are no conditions, exclusions, or mention of prerequisites, so an agent is left to infer when this is the right choice.

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