get_publication_history

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

Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns only earlier publications, models the tender→correction→award lifecycle, and notes that an empty list is normal for a first publication. This helps set expectations without contradicting any annotation.

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 brief and front-loaded with a use case. It contains a slight redundancy: the lifecycle is stated in both the use case ('tender to award to correction') and the second sentence ('tender → correction → award'). Otherwise, it is tight and scannable.

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 tool has an output schema, return values need not be described in detail. The description covers the main purpose, lifecycle stages, and an important edge case (empty list on first publication). It is complete enough for a simple single-ID history lookup, though it could mention ordering or pagination if relevant.

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?

The tool description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the input schema already provides. The schema describes `publication_id` as the ID whose earlier publications are returned and `language` as the preferred language for localized fields with a default and enum, so the description's value is contextual rather than semantic. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema covers the parameter meanings.

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's purpose: 'Return earlier publications of the same procurement project' and frames it as tracing a project's lifecycle (tender → correction → award). The explicit use case question — 'what happened to this procurement?' — sets it apart from sibling search/detail tools, making the resource and action unambiguous.

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 description gives an explicit trigger: 'Use when the question is "what happened to this procurement?"' and clarifies the lifecycle scope. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes it clear this is for historical tracing rather than general search, which earns a 4.

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