search_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination behavior, access requirements, rate limits, or return format. Listing variables without explaining their effect or what the query does is insufficient.

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 unformatted line that mixes a category label, variable names, and an example. It is under-specified rather than concise, lacking clear structure or prioritized information. It does not earn its place as a helpful guide.

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?

With 6 parameters, a required 'by' field, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain what the query returns, how pagination works via 'after'/'first', or when to use this tool. An agent cannot reliably select or invoke this tool based on the provided information.

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 100% (each parameter has a GraphQL type description), meeting the high-coverage baseline of 3. The tool description adds a concrete example of variable values, which helps illustrate structure, but it does not explain the semantic meaning of each parameter beyond what the schema already implies.

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 merely restates the tool name ('query searchHistory') and adds a vague category 'Query Management' without specifying what history is searched or what the query returns. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'incident' or 'case'.

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 alternatives, no context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The example variables give a partial usage pattern but no explanation of scenarios where this should be invoked.

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