History of one article

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context that annotations cannot: ordering ('oldest change first') and the empty-result contract for unamended articles.

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?

Two short sentences plus a sentence fragment, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the usage condition. The Persian '(اصلاحی...)' gloss with a trailing ellipsis is slightly opaque but does not cost much space.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably: it names the fields, the ordering, and the empty case. It does not specify the exact response shape (list vs wrapped object) or any pagination, leaving a small gap for a history-list tool.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains the pattern and where the section_id comes from. The description adds no syntax or sourcing detail beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Every amendment of one article') and enumerates the returned fields (type, date, amending law, replacing text), so the agent can distinguish it from qv_amendments and qv_law without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger and prerequisite chain: use after qv_law or qv_amendments when asked how an article changed, and notes the empty-list case for never-amended articles. It does not state a when-not condition or an exclusion against other siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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