history_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context: the tool is local-only, makes no API calls, and matches on filenames. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as return volume, ordering, or whether results are read-only (though 'search' implies no mutation).

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 two concise sentences with no redundant words. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the quota/scope note is efficiently placed in the second. It earns its place with zero fluff.

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 simple two-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides essential context: local scope, non-API nature, and filename substring matching. It doesn't explain return values, but the response_format parameter and schema cover that. The only missing piece is explicit distinction from sibling search_history, which is partially handled by 'local only (no API).'

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?

Even though the schema already describes both parameters, the description's phrase 'filename substring' adds meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Substring to match.' This clarifies that the query applies to filenames, not file contents or song metadata, which is valuable for correct usage.

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's verb and resource: 'Search local portability/backups for files.' It further specifies the matching criterion as 'filename substring,' making the scope precise and distinguishing it from broader search tools like search_history or search_tracks.

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 provides clear context by emphasizing 'local portability/backups' and quota '🟢 local only (no API).' This guides an agent to select this tool when working with local backup files rather than live API data, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use them.

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