hive_account_history

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), the description adds crucial behavioral details: default limit (100), return of next_start for pagination even when no matches, no automatic pagination, local filter application, and refusal of oversized results. These are specific and useful for an agent to predict behavior, particularly around pagination and result size handling.

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, dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose first, then covers defaults, filters, pagination, and caveats in order of importance. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers most critical behavior: purpose, default, filter semantics, pagination mechanism, and edge-case size limits. It does not describe the return format beyond mentioning next_start, but since there is no output schema, this is a minor gap. The description is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly in most cases, but a note about the response structure would have made it complete.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. It mentions the default for limit ('newest 100 records') and explains the custom_json_id filter is applied locally, which adds meaning. However, it does not describe the 'start' parameter (only mentions next_start in return, implying its purpose) or the 'operation_type' parameter at all. Since over 40% of parameters (start, operation_type) are not explained in the description, this is a partial compensation, warranting a score of 3.

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 a bounded window of an explicit Hive account's authority-indexed history, with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Hive account's authority-indexed history'). It also distinguishes itself from 'complete incoming-recipient history', clarifying what it is not, which helps the agent understand its scope.

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 important usage context: it explains the default behavior (newest 100 records), the local application of the custom_json_id filter, and the lack of automatic pagination, explicitly stating this is not a complete history. However, it does not name a specific alternative tool or explicitly say when to use this versus another, only implies that for complete history manual pagination would be needed. This is clear context but lacks an explicit exclusion.

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