person_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: every change snapshots the previous card and only the newest 10 revisions are retained, which tells the agent about the retention window and what data is exposed.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero filler. The purpose and ordering are front-loaded, followed by behavior and the handoff to the sibling tool; every clause earns its place.

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 read-only listing tool with one fully documented parameter, the description covers purpose, ordering, returned fields, retention limit, and the restore path. No output schema exists, and none is needed since the fields are enumerated inline.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the slug format is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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: 'Revision history of a person card', with ordering ('newest first') and the exact fields returned (id, op, replaced_at). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like person_revision_restore and person.

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?

Explicitly routes to the alternative: 'Use person_revision_restore to put one back,' naming the sibling and the condition that selects it. No explicit when-not and no prerequisites stated, so it falls short of a full 5.

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