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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one piece of real behavioral context — output is scoped to 'the linked Market Brew account' — which is useful access-scope information not present in the annotations. It stops there, saying nothing about what a 'detail' record contains or pagination/limits.

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, front-loaded with the usage trigger and scoping caveat. There is no padding, though the first sentence is largely redundant with the tool name.

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 and zero parameter documentation, the description should carry more burden for a 2-required-param lookup tool. It covers access scope but omits parameter meaning, the relationship to list_search_widget_history, and any indication of what the returned detail contains.

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 description coverage is 0% for both required parameters (searchWidgetId, searchHistoryId), and the description supplies no meaning for either. An agent must guess the ID types, formats, and where they come from, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 essentially restates the tool name: 'get Search Widget query history detail' for a tool named get_search_widget_history. It identifies the resource (a single search widget history entry) but does not distinguish it from the sibling list_search_widget_history, leaving the singular-vs-list distinction to be inferred from the name alone.

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?

'Use this when the user asks to get Search Widget query history detail' is a circular trigger that adds no condition beyond the name. There is no mention of when to prefer this over list_search_widget_history or get_search_widget_session, and no prerequisites are stated.

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