verify_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does provide key behavioral traits: bypasses decay and searches an immutable Archive, reasonably implying a safe read-only operation. It leaves out details like error behavior or exact output, but adds substantive context beyond the schema.

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?

Two sparse sentences, front-loaded with the essential behavior and use case. No wasted words or redundancy with the schema.

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 one-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, use case, and data source adequately. It could mention the scope of the archive or decay semantics, but current level is sufficient.

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 sole parameter keyword has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not add any semantics about acceptable values, matching behavior, or search syntax. More compensation was needed here.

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?

Clearly states it searches the immutable Archive and bypasses decay, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning recall_memory as a different mechanism and this as the archival/audit 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?

Explicitly instructs to use for audit or when recall fails, providing clear context. It does not name recall_memory directly, but the sibling list and phrasing imply the alternative and the exclusion of normal recall.

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