get_document_history

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds the detail that the history includes actor and timestamp, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, ordering, or any permission requirements. The annotation and description are consistent, and the description adds a modest amount of context beyond the annotation.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Get the change history') and immediately clarifies the output ('who changed what and when'). Every word is functional; there is no redundancy or 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?

For a read-only tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's purpose and return content. It does not explicitly mention pagination or result ordering, but the schema's page/page_size parameters imply those behaviors, making the overall definition complete enough 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%, with all three parameters (id, page, page_size) already documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional parameter-level detail, so it does not improve on what the schema provides.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('change history / audit log for a document'), and the exact information it provides ('who changed what and when'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_document_content or get_document_metadata, which serve different purposes.

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 implies the use case (retrieving audit information for a document) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. There is no mention of sibling tools like get_document_content or get_document, so an agent must infer the appropriate selection from the description alone.

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