search_history

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

The read-only annotation covers safety, and the description adds a filtering behavior ('evidence-backed'), but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as workspace scoping or the effect of global_scope. It doesn't contradict the annotation.

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?

Single sentence, no redundant words, front-loaded with the action verb.

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?

For a tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse; it fails to specify what constitutes a valid 'question', the meaning of workspace scope, or expected return values, making it insufficient for reliable 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?

The description does not explain any of the four parameters. With only 50% schema coverage, the 'question' and 'limit' parameters are not defined in either the schema or description, leaving the agent without necessary semantics.

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 uses a specific verb 'Find' and identifies the resource as 'evidence-backed councillors in local history', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_evidence or council_status. However, it could be more explicit about what inputs drive the search.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like council_status or get_evidence; the description offers no usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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