query_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds 'persisted historical items' and 'cursor pagination' context, which is useful. However, it does not describe the return format, how cursors are obtained (e.g., from previous responses), or the meaning of the output. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 single-sentence description is concise and avoids verbose filler. However, it is brief to the point of under-specification rather than tight-but-complete, warranting a minor deduction.

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 7 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, the tool needs substantial documentation to be usable. The description fails to explain parameter semantics, filtering behavior, cursor usage mechanics, or how this differs from sibling search_history. Despite having an output schema, the 0% parameter coverage and sibling ambiguity leave significant gaps.

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 carries full burden for parameter meaning, but it adds nothing about the 7 parameters. The mention of 'kind' and 'cursor' exists in the schema but the description never explains their purpose, valid values, or interactions. The since/until date filters and board_key are entirely undocumented.

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 'Query persisted historical items with cursor pagination.' This gives a clear verb+resource (query historical items) and mentions pagination via cursor. However, it does not specify what 'historical items' are or how it differs from sibling tool search_history, which sounds like it does something similar.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus search_history, fetch_current, or other siblings. The presence of sibling search_history strongly suggests a similar purpose that should be disambiguated, but no distinction is provided. Context around kind/site/board_key filtering is entirely absent.

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