search_history_sessions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the purpose and outputs ('List of matching history sessions') and explains filter behavior in the Args section. However, it does not mention whether filters are combined with AND/OR logic, ordering, pagination, or potential side effects, though the read-only nature is implied by 'search'.

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 compact and well-organized, with a one-line purpose, a clear Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

The description covers all five parameters and the return type, which for a search/filter tool is largely sufficient. An output schema exists, so detailed return structure is not needed. However, it omits details about filter combination logic (AND/OR) and result ordering, which would be valuable for complex queries. Thus slightly short of fully 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by documenting every parameter with examples (e.g., year '2025', month '08' for August, min_tracks minimum number). This adds meaningful semantic detail beyond the bare schema titles and defaults.

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 opens with 'Search DJ history sessions with various filters,' which clearly states a specific action ('search'), a resource ('DJ history sessions'), and the ability to filter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_history_sessions or get_recent_sessions, which imply different retrieval modes.

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 implies usage through the filter context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_history_sessions or get_recent_sessions. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the agent to infer the difference from the 'search' and 'filters' wording.

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