Amendment history of a statute

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by specifying what the amendment log contains (amending law, affected provision, effective date), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations. This adds meaningful transparency about the tool's output behavior, though it omits details like ordering or pagination, which are less critical given the output schema exists.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the complementary usage hint is in the second. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and does not repeat schema information. Excellent structure and brevity.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 params, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what it returns, and a complementary usage note. It does not explicitly mention the optional parameters (limit, actNumber), but those are documented in the schema with descriptions. No critical information for a correct call is missing, though it could benefit from a note on default behavior or error handling. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, meaning all parameters (statute, limit, actNumber) are already documented in the input schema with their own descriptions. The tool description does not add any extra meaning about these parameters; it only mentions the output fields. Since the schema fully covers parameter semantics, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description does not enhance it further.

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 ('List') and a resource ('amendment log for a statute') with the fields returned (amending law, affected provision, effective date). It is clear about what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_history' or 'related_laws', which might overlap in purpose. The mention of 'amendment log' is specific, but without naming alternatives, it leaves some ambiguity.

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 gives a clear complementary usage hint: 'Use with get_provision to confirm the current text of an amended provision.' This implies when to use this tool (to see amendment history) and when to use another (to get current text). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or contrast with other siblings like 'show_history' or 'related_laws'. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive, earning a 3 rather than a 4.

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