search_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's capabilities but fails to disclose important behavioral traits like accessing personal data (user's browsing history) and potential privacy implications.

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 well-structured with sections and examples, but it is verbose. Some sentences could be merged or removed without losing clarity. It earns its place but could be more concise.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, 1 required) and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, and examples well. It lacks usage guidelines and behavioral context, but overall it is fairly complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description excellently compensates by explaining each parameter with examples (e.g., 'RAG pipeline' for query) and clarifying defaults (limit=10). It adds significant value beyond the schema's type constraints.

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 searches Chrome browsing history by keyword, listing the event types it covers (page visits, selections, etc.). Sibling tools have distinct purposes (ask_brain, check_status, etc.), so this tool is well-distinguished.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It is implied by the unique functionality (searching history), but no guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites is given.

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