get_entity_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states the operation ('get change history') without disclosing response format, pagination, permissions, or how it differs from get_audit. For a read-only tool, this is minimal but lacks transparency about what the change history contains or its structure.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the action and scope. It is concise with no filler or redundant information, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the purpose.

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 the simple two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not clarify the structure of the change history response or explain the distinction from the broader get_audit sibling. These omissions could lead an agent to under-utilize the tool or misinterpret its granularity.

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 100% with clear descriptions for both id ('Entity UUID') and entity_type ('Entity type, e.g. 'customerorder', 'product''). The description merely restates these as 'by type and UUID' without adding new constraints, formatting guidance, or examples, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's function: 'Get the change history of a single entity by type and UUID.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly mentions the scope (single entity) and the required parameters (type and UUID). This differentiates it from the sibling get_audit, which likely covers broader audit logs.

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 phrase 'single entity' provides clear context for when to use this tool (when you need history for one entity), implying a contrast with get_audit for bulk or multi-entity queries. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, 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.