fedlex_get_law_history

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral details: sorted descending by effective date, max 50 versions, and SR number format requirement, which goes beyond annotations.

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 concise with a main sentence, followed by structured sections for use case, important notes, and example. Every sentence provides meaningful information with no waste.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and key constraints. With only one required parameter and clear notes, it is largely complete. Minor omission: no mention of the language parameter default or behavior.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides some parameter guidance: example 'sr_number='235.1'' and note to separate SR number with dot. However, the 'language' parameter is not explained. The example adds value but is not comprehensive.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves version history (all consolidated versions) of a law, with a specific use case and example. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that search laws or get current law by SR number.

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 use case explains when to use it (comparing old vs revised law versions). Important notes provide context on sorting and limits. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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