get_record_history

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description correctly reinforces a read-only perspective. Adds behavioral context about ordering ('newest first') and version dependency ('gramps-webapi 3.22 or later'). Does not state pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, but annotations cover the safety profile well.

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 terse sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a cross-reference and version constraint. No wasted words.

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 history retrieval tool with a 3-param schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, cross-reference, and version dependency. Missing explicit return format or pagination, but that's acceptable given the simplicity and annotations.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds almost no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying the record reference and change order, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: who added/edited/deleted a record and when. Uses 'newest first' to clarify ordering. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_transaction and get_object.

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?

Implies use for examining change history of a single record, and mentions get_transaction for transaction details. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare against list_transactions or query_records.

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