hive_account_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavior beyond those: bounded window semantics, local custom_json_id filtering, next_start returned even on empty matches, no automatic pagination, and refusal of oversized results. This is rich, non-redundant behavioral disclosure.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope, default, filter behavior, pagination behavior, limitation, and error behavior. The most important scoping detail is front-loaded and nothing is wasted.

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 read-only annotations and the detailed behavioral notes, an agent has most of what it needs to call this tool correctly. The missing explanation of operation_type and the absence of any output schema/return-shape note prevent a perfect score, but the core invocation and pagination contract are well covered.

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. It explains custom_json_id filtering semantics and implies limit/start windowing through 'bounded window' and 'next_start', but operation_type is not explained at all, and start's cursor behavior is only indirectly hinted at. Partial compensation with a clear remaining 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 states a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('one bounded window of an explicit Hive account's authority-indexed history'). It further distinguishes itself by explicitly noting this is not complete incoming-recipient history, which helps separate it from sibling history 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 gives clear context about the bounded window, the default of newest 100 records, and the lack of automatic pagination. It warns that oversized results are refused, and that this tool is not complete incoming-recipient history, but it does not name an alternative sibling for complete history, so it stays just short of explicit alternative routing.

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