Get document history

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

Annotations already establish that the operation is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it requires audit logging to be enabled, returns newest entries first, and implies pagination via the limit parameter. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then states the prerequisite and ordering/limit behavior, all in a compact and readable way.

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 simple read-only tool with two well-understood parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerquisitie, result ordering, and limit usage. It is essentially complete for calling the tool correctly, though it omits explicit details about the exact response shape or behavior when audit logging is disabled.

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 only 50% because the id parameter has no description. The description compensates partially by explaining that limit controls how far back the audit trail is viewed, but it adds little about id beyond the term 'document' in the purpose statement. The limit schema already documents the default and max, so the added semantic value is modest.

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 identifies the tool as an audit trail of document changes, specifying who changed which field and when. This meaningfully distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_document or get_document_metadata, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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?

It implies the intended use case through 'audit trail of changes' and gives a prerequisite: audit logging must be enabled. However, it does not contrast with nearby tools such as get_document_metadata or get_document_content, so an agent gets only indirect guidance for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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