search_history

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

The description adds a useful behavioral trait: results are attributable evidence, not free-form summaries, and the search covers persisted content. This complements the annotations (readOnly, idempotent) without contradicting them, though it does not mention pagination or rate limits.

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 with two clauses, front-loaded with the verb and target. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague language.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter descriptions. For a tool with 7 parameters and overlapping siblings, the description is too sparse for reliable tool selection and 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings, but it only implies that the keyword searches the listed content types. It fails to clarify site, limit, since, until, cursor, or board_key, leaving a significant gap.

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 action ('Search') and the specific resources (persisted titles, descriptions, and newsflash content). It also distinguishes itself by noting it returns attributable evidence, not free-form summaries, which separates it from summarization tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like query_history or fetch_current. It does not mention exclusions or specify scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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