list_law_revisions

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

readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already establish this as a safe read against external data, so the description only needs to add context. It does disclose the status vocabulary (in force / not yet in force / repealed) and that results are per-revision, but says nothing about ordering, pagination (despite limit/offset), or what happens when the law id is unknown or the law has no amendments.

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, no filler. The resource and row contents come first, the intended use second, which matches how an agent would scan for a routing decision.

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, the description is not obliged to explain return shapes, and read-only behavior is covered by annotations; what remains needed is the calling decision, which it provides. Minor gaps are ordering and result-set size limits for a potentially long revision list.

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?

Coverage is 50%: law_id_or_num has an explicit "exact match" note and current_revision_status says "Revision states, any of". The description never mentions the status filter or how to use limit/offset, though its phrasing about revisions being "in force now, not yet in force or repealed" loosely hints at what the status filter accepts. Adequate but not compensatory.

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?

"List one law's amendment history" gives a specific verb (list), resource (revisions of a single law) and scope (one law only), and then enumerates exactly what each row contains (enforcement date, amending law, revision id, status). That is enough to separate it from search_laws, read_law_text and get_law_outline, which operate on text rather than revision chains.

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 it to choose the asof date or revision id to read" states a concrete decision the tool feeds into, and "or to see when a change takes effect" covers the second use case. It stops short of naming the sibling tools it precedes (read_law_text) or excluding cases where another tool is better, so no explicit when-not guidance.

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