history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral value: completeness (ALL events, including corrections and retractions) and deterministic ordering by recording time. However, it says nothing about behavior when entity_id does not exist, or about result size limits for long-lived records.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The ordering guarantee and the inclusion of corrections/retractions are packed into the same clause that identifies the resource.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and a one-parameter read tool is simple. Still, the description omits the parameter's meaning and any failure behavior, leaving just enough gaps that an agent must infer how to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does not. 'One record' hints that a record must be identified, but entity_id is never named or explained, so an agent gets no confirmation that the parameter is the record identifier rather than, say, an event or series id.

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 makes the resource and return content concrete: 'Every event of one record, including corrections and retractions, in recording order.' This distinguishes it in substance from get_entity (current state) and query_log (query traffic), though it never explicitly names a sibling. The verb is implied rather than stated, keeping it short of 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_entity for current state or query_log for other history types. The audit-trail purpose is inferable but never stated as a condition for selection.

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