search_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose meaningful behavioral context: results are stored in a 'local sidecar' and expire after 90 days. However, it does not mention important operational traits such as what happens when no local sidecar exists, whether this is a pure read operation, or how empty results are handled.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. Core action, storage location, retention policy, and optional filtering are all conveyed efficiently and front-loaded.

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 retrieval tool with no required parameters, the description is mostly adequate, and the schema fills in parameter details. However, with no output schema or annotations, the description does not clarify return structure beyond the response_format enum, nor does it address edge cases like missing history data or how 'local sidecar' relates to other history tools.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented with defaults and meanings. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing that 'query' filters by substring, but it does not go beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Recall') and a clear resource ('past searches'), with valuable constraints ('local sidecar, 90-day expiry'). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like history_search or search_history_stats.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as history_search, search_history_stats, or search_rerun. 'Recall past searches' implies a use case, but there are no exclusions, comparisons, or conditions to help an agent choose correctly among the many search-related siblings.

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