Get Course History

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by specifying the exact return content (date, item counts, content hash, changelog) and the 'per course' scoping. It does not contradict any annotations and enriches the behavioral picture.

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 reasonably concise but includes an 'Args' list that duplicates the schema's parameter descriptions. The purpose is front-loaded and clear, but the redundant parameter explanations add length without value. It is not overly verbose but could be tightened. A 3 reflects that it is efficient enough but not exemplary.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, which it does with 'Returns: Timeline of crawl snapshots and detected changes per course.' It also covers the optionality of the course parameter. For a read-only historical tool with clear annotations, it provides sufficient information for correct invocation, though it omits details like pagination or snapshot limits, which are minor given the 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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters (subject, grade, course) are fully documented in the input schema. The description reiterates these but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The only slight addition is clarifying the optional course behavior, but that is already in the schema's property description. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Show the crawl history and change timeline for a specific course.' It specifies the resource (course history) and the verb (show), and distinguishes it from typical curriculum-content tools by focusing on crawl snapshots and changelogs. It is clear but does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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 implies when to use it (when needing historical crawl data), and provides the conditional behavior for the 'course' parameter (if omitted, shows all courses). However, it does not compare with alternatives like get_curriculum_changes or list_courses, nor does it state when not to use it. This is adequate but leaves some selection judgment to the agent.

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