get_vehicle_history

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

With no annotations, the description partially carries the behavioral burden by disclosing newest-first ordering and that only canonical revisions are returned. It does not mention pagination behavior, whether it is read-only, or how revisions relate to other vehicle data.

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 that conveys the action, object, and ordering without filler. It earns its place and is easy to parse.

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?

The core operation is clear, but the definition is incomplete for correct invocation because it omits how limit and before_revision should be used. The output schema helps with return values, but not with parameter semantics or pagination strategy.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter information. 'vin' and 'limit' are somewhat self-explanatory, but 'before_revision' lacks crucial semantics such as whether it is a cursor, whether it is inclusive, or what revision identifier it expects.

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 and resource: retrieve historical canonical revisions, and adds a meaningful ordering detail (newest-first). The word 'historical' and the plural 'revisions' distinguish it from the sibling get_vehicle_revision.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus get_vehicle_revision, get_source_observation, or lookup_vehicle. The context is only implied by the phrase 'historical canonical revisions', not explicitly stated.

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