record_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully reinforces this by saying the history is 'local', consistent with openWorldHint=false, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what a version entry contains.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined pruning.

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?

With no output schema, 0% parameter description coverage, and three parameters, the description should explain what the returned version history looks like and how limit paginates it. Neither the return shape nor the parameter semantics are addressed, leaving an agent unable to predict the response.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for id, kind, and limit. It adds only the vague notion of an 'imported record' and never explains the kind enum values, the id format, or that limit caps returned history entries.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and a specific resource (local version history) scoped to imported records, which distinguishes it from the sibling getters that return current state. It does not, however, explicitly name an alternative such as get_order, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 phrase 'for an imported record' hints at a precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among siblings like get_order or status. An agent must infer that this tool is only for records already imported locally.

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