list_autocomplete_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context about the query scope (previously run) and the returned attributes. It does not mention pagination behavior or any other side effects, but for a read-only list operation that is acceptable. The description adds some value beyond annotations but not rich behavioral detail.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('List') and the resource, and it enumerates the output fields without any redundant or unnecessary wording.

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 the low complexity of this paginated list tool, the description is complete: it specifies the resource scope, the returned fields, and combines with the schema for pagination details and the annotation for read-only safety. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by listing the return fields.

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 descriptions for page and per_page are complete (100% coverage), including defaults and maximums. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 verb 'List' and the resource 'autocomplete queries you have previously run', and enumerates the specific fields returned (prefix, store, country, lang, suggestion count, last query date). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_keywords or run_autocomplete.

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 phrase 'you have previously run' gives clear context that this is for historical review, implying use when checking past autocomplete queries. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like run_autocomplete, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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