ris_history

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

With no annotations, the description reveals that it shows creation, modification, and deletion events. It does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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 well-structured with a brief purpose statement, usage note, categorized application list, and examples. The list of 30 applications is somewhat redundant with the schema but adds categorization value.

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?

For a search tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details on result format, pagination behavior, and sorting. The examples only show date range filtering, leaving other parameter behaviors unexplained.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by categorizing the 'applikation' parameter and providing concrete query examples illustrating how parameters are used together.

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 searches 'document change history' with verb 'search' and resource 'document change history'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ris_bundesrecht by focusing on historical changes rather than current content.

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 explicitly says 'Use this tool to track changes to legal documents over time,' providing clear usage context. However, it does not specify when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings.

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