get_law_history

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

No annotations provided. The description mentions output fields but does not explicitly state read-only nature, rate limits, or auth requirements. It conveys retrieval behavior but leaves gaps.

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?

Five sentences with no redundancy. Purpose is at the start, output details follow, and next steps are clear. Slightly more compact than necessary but still efficient.

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 no output schema and two simple parameters, the description explains the tool's role and output fields. It covers usage context and sibling relations, though error handling is omitted.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage. The description adds output context but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns all versions of a law by enforcement date, including current, historical, and pending. It differentiates from siblings like get_historical_law and compare_old_new by explaining the workflow.

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 provides a specific use case (tracking timeline branches of frequently amended laws like PIPA) and directs to next steps. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios but offers clear context.

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