statute_history

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes a safe read, and the description adds real behavioral information beyond it: the as-of date acts as a version-selection rule and can surface not-yet-in-force versions. It does not disclose pagination behavior, result size limits, or what happens when a law is resolved by name vs id.

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 dense sentences with the conceptual framing front-loaded and the mode breakdown following immediately; no filler. Slightly compact given the breadth of modes, but every clause carries information.

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 12-parameter, multi-mode tool with no output schema and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the mode axis and the as-of rule but omits the role of the paired date parameters, pagination, and identifier resolution. Adequate to call, incomplete to call confidently.

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 only 33%, so the description is expected to compensate. It does a good job on the highest-value parameter by defining each mode enum value and implying asOf semantics, but eight parameters (from, to, dateA, dateB, article, page, size, mst/lawId relationships) remain undescribed, leaving ambiguity between similar date params.

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 frames the tool as the temporal axis of legislation and then names all five operating modes (versions, article_changes, old_new, compare_dates, lineage), so an agent knows exactly what resource it operates on. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings such as statute_find or article_get, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Mode enumeration implicitly tells the agent which mode to pick for a given task, and the closing sentence hints at the as-of reference-date rule. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing against the sibling tools, and no statement of prerequisites, so usage is inferred rather than stated.

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