search_chrome_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the search matches both web page titles and URLs, and mentions the max_results default. However, it does not state whether it is read-only, potential rate limits, or return format. The behavioral disclosure is minimal but adequate for a simple search operation.

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 concise: two sentences for purpose and behavior, followed by a compact Args list. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant filler. The front-loaded main sentence immediately conveys the tool's core function.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description is fairly complete. It explains the search scope, the default result limit, and does not need to detail return values because an output schema exists. However, it does not mention ordering, empty results, or any access prerequisites, which might be expected for a complete picture.

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%, so the description must compensate. The Args section provides clear meanings for both parameters: keyword as the search term and max_results as the maximum number of results (default 100). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it essentially restates what the schema types imply.

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 Chrome browsing history by keyword, specifying that it matches both webpage titles and URLs. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recent_history (which fetches recent history) and search_chrome_bookmarks (which searches bookmarks).

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 for when to use this tool: when you need to search history by keyword. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use get_recent_history for recent entries' or 'not for bookmarks.' The context is sufficient but lacks explicit discrimination.

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