search_history

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

No annotations provided. The description merely says 'Search and filter' but does not disclose read-only nature, performance characteristics, or whether results are paginated. Given the lack of annotations, the description carries full burden and fails to provide sufficient behavioral context.

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 very short (one sentence) and front-loads the verb and resource. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it minimally adequate but not optimally structured for an AI agent.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description fails to cover essential aspects like parameter usage, return value structure, or edge cases. It is incomplete for the complexity of the tool.

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%. The description only mentions the 'method' parameter's options, leaving all other 8 parameters (limit, top_k, client, end_date, keywords, file_name, start_date, query) completely unexplained. No details on formats, defaults, or relationships.

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 and filters historical transcripts, with specific method options listed. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_chat_logs' which likely retrieves logs directly, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., compile_project_insights, get_chat_logs). The description only lists method options without explaining their appropriate contexts.

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