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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the data is fictional (synthetic sandbox content, not real records) and the query is executed by a genuine FTS5 engine, implying full-text query syntax. It says nothing about result size, ordering, or pagination.

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 short sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is tight but arguably under-developed, leaving no room for the parameter and scoping detail an agent needs.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema retrieval tool with zero schema description coverage, the description should at minimum explain sandbox_key and the shape of the returned history. Neither is addressed, leaving the agent guessing at a required parameter.

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%, so the description carries the burden for two parameters. "FTS5 engine" hints that query accepts FTS5 syntax, but sandbox_key is entirely unexplained — no indication of its format, whether it must reference a started sandbox, or how it scopes results.

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?

"Retrieve fictional sandbox history" gives a specific verb and resource, and the FTS5 mention distinguishes it as a full-text search over stored history rather than a write like reserve_sandbox_record_action. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead of reserve_sandbox_trace or reserve_sandbox_remember, so differentiation is only partial.

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 description offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must a sandbox be started first via reserve_sandbox_start), and no indication of when a sibling such as reserve_sandbox_trace would be preferable. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the word "history".

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