get_part_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the payload shape (dates, quantity ratios, interchangeability) and the bidirectional, depth-bounded traversal. It does not cover what happens with an unknown or non-superseded part number, whether chains can be cyclic, or what ordering the results come in.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause carries information (directions, attached metadata, endpoint tool). The phrase 'which numbers replaced it… and which older numbers it replaced' is slightly redundant but not wasteful.

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?

For a three-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives a decent sketch of the returned data and chain semantics. It still leaves out error behavior, whether the queried part appears in the results, and any indication of result size or depth effects.

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 67%: lang and max_depth are documented in the schema, but part_number has no schema description at all. The prose implies part_number identifies the chain to traverse but adds no format or validity guidance, and it does not elaborate on how max_depth interacts with the two-way walk beyond what the schema already says.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Follow the supersession (replacement) chain of a part number') and makes the direction of traversal explicit (both newer replacements and older predecessors). It does not, however, contrast itself with nearby siblings such as get_part or where_used, so an agent must infer that this is the supersession tool rather than a fitment 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?

Usage is implied by the concept of a supersession chain, and the closing note tells the agent to use current_parts for chain endpoints. There is no explicit 'use this when…' statement, no exclusions, and no guidance on when get_part or where_used would be the better call.

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