get_provenance_history

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only supplies a pricing blurb ("Requires Kiln Pro") that is ambiguous about whether the tool itself is gated or merely advertises a plan. It says nothing about read-only safety, ordering, pagination of the limit, or result shape.

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?

Only one of four sentences serves the calling agent; the remaining three are a marketing upsell and URL with no invocation value. The useful content is front-loaded, but the payload is diluted roughly 3:1 by noise.

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?

A 7-parameter query tool with no annotations and no output schema should explain filtering semantics and return format. Instead it omits both, and the sole contextual sentence misdirects toward plan gating rather than tool behavior.

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 the baseline is 3 even though the schema field descriptions are thin (mostly just "Default: ..."). The prose adds no meaning beyond the schema for limit, material, since_iso, printer_id, feature_class, mapping_rule_id, or originating_signal.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ("Return provenance-log entries"), which is clear enough, but "for explainability" is a vague purpose qualifier and does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like verify_provenance_integrity or export_audit_trail that also traffic in provenance data.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. With several provenance/audit-adjacent siblings in the list, the agent gets no routing signal at all.

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