get_authority_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose a key limitation: 'Version text is truncated here; full text comes from lookup_authority.' It also explains what each history entry contains. It could add detail about read-only guarantees or potential output size, but the essential behavior is transparent.

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 compact paragraphs, with the core purpose in the first sentence and the follow-up workflow in the second. Every sentence adds value, and there is no filler or repetition of schema boilerplate.

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?

The tool has one fully documented required parameter and an output schema, so the description needs only to clarify purpose, scope, and the truncation/full-text workflow. It does all of this succinctly, and even names the sibling tool to use next. Nothing essential is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The schema already describes citation as 'A constitutional, statutory, court-rule, or admin-code reference,' and the description repeats this domain without adding new format examples, syntax, or disambiguation. It adds context about how the parameter relates to history lookup but not much beyond 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 description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Show the amendment history of a ND constitutional, statutory, court-rule, or administrative provision.' It names exactly what content is returned (every version with effective dates and enacting authority). It also differentiates itself from the sibling lookup_authority by noting that full text comes from there.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to see how a provision changed over time.' It then directs the agent to a concrete alternative, lookup_authority, with the specific parameter as_of_date, and clarifies that version text is truncated here but full text comes from lookup_authority. This is clear routing guidance.

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