search_rerun

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the operation ('re-execute') and HTTP method (GET), implying a read-only action, but does not explicitly note that it is non-destructive, does not mention any side effects (e.g., history updates, rate limits), nor does it describe the output format beyond the existence of response_format in the schema. The description is minimal and lacks 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 a single sentence that communicates the core functionality and endpoint, with no fluff or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the key action.

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 tool this simple, the description covers the essential action, but it doesn't explain how to obtain a history id (e.g., from search_history or a prior search), nor does it describe the response structure beyond the schema. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, an agent might need additional pointers, but the tool is straightforward enough that the description is adequate for basic invocation.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters: history_id is described as 'History entry id' and response_format explains its three modes. The description adds no additional explanation for these parameters, so it doesn't exceed the schema's baseline. A score of 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameters well.

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 specific verb 're-execute' and resource 'stored search', and identifies the endpoint 'GET /search'. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_tracks and search_advanced, which perform new searches. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 communicates the tool's purpose (re-execute a stored search by history id), which implicitly tells an agent when to use it: when a past search's history id is available. However, it does not explicitly mention any alternatives or conditions for when NOT to use it, such as preferring a fresh search tool. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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