Version history of one symbol

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the scope restriction to *public* symbols and by naming the categories of change surfaced, so the agent knows what it will learn.

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, both earning their place: the first specifies content, the second specifies timing. The scope-and-payload sentence is front-loaded before the usage advice, with no filler.

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 an output schema present and both parameters fully documented, the description needn't explain return values and correctly doesn't. The only remaining gap is behavior on an unknown or private symbol (error vs. empty result), which would matter for correct invocation.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented as a PyPI distribution name and a public dotted path. The description's example (package='httpx' alongside path='httpx.Client.__init__') usefully demonstrates that the path may redundantly carry the package prefix, but otherwise it does not extend the schema.

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 definition gives a specific verb and resource ('version history of one public symbol') and enumerates exactly what the history contains: first/last release, signature changes, deprecations, removals, and replacement candidates. This is clearly distinct from diff_versions and check_symbols in scope, though it does not name a sibling to route away from.

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?

'Use before writing code against an API you remember from training data' supplies a concrete triggering situation, which is exactly the class of guidance most tools lack. It stops short of exclusions or an explicit 'use X instead when...' handoff to check_symbols or diff_versions.

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