Get Article History

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does real work: it discloses the row-per-revision return shape, the exact field set, and the sort order ('oldest first'), plus what is deliberately absent (wikitext). It omits pagination/row-limit behavior and any size or rate constraints, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences; the purpose comes first, then the return contract, then the exclusion/alternative. The field list is dense but every element earns its place since no output schema exists to carry it.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by describing the result rows and sort order, and it names the alternative for wikitext. Minor gaps remain around result volume/pagination for long-lived articles and the precise semantics of the date_limit cutoff, but they are not required for a correct call.

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%: lang, date_limit (ISO 8601 upper bound) and article_name are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or default guidance beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('full revision history of a Wikipedia article'), and the second sentence enumerates the exact per-revision fields returned. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_article_recent by noting wikitext exclusion, so the agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear use condition implicitly (fetch revision history) and an explicit exclusion with an alternative: 'Wikitext is not included; use get_article_recent for that.' It does not, however, address how this differs from other similar siblings such as get_article_info or get_article_initial, leaving part of the routing to inference.

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