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. It discloses the core search behavior (URL or title) but does not mention output format, ordering, case-sensitivity, pagination, or potential rate limits. For a read-only search, the risk is low, but important behavioral details are omitted, making it minimally adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple search tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. The tool name and parameter schema fill in remaining gaps. However, the lack of annotations and explicit return-value details leaves some ambiguity, though it remains complete enough for typical use.

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 coverage is 100%, meaning both parameters ('query' and 'limit') are already fully described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating that the query filters by URL or title, which is already present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('browsing history'), and the search criteria ('by URL or title'). This accurately distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bookmarks or navigate, though no explicit differentiation is needed since it's the only history search tool.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever the user needs to find items in browsing history by URL or title. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the tool's unique purpose among siblings makes the context clear. Lacking explicit 'when not to use' guidance keeps it from a 5.

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