query_package_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that it reads from zypp logs and restricts to SUSE Linux, plus indicates the nature of results (recent transactions, failures, sync history). This goes beyond the annotation to clarify the data source and query semantics.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and then details the four query types with concise examples. While longer than ideal, every sentence contributes useful information, and the format is easy to scan.

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 tool's complexity (four query types, conditional parameter), the description covers the main use cases and output intent. It lacks explicit return format details, but the absence of an output schema and the read-only nature make this acceptable.

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%, but the description adds meaning by explaining each enum value with examples and clarifying that package_name is required for query_type='package'. This enriches the schema's bare descriptions.

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 queries package history from zypp logs, listing four specific query types with concrete examples. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_updates_dry_run and verify_package_integrity by focusing on historical log data.

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 provides explicit usage context for each query type via examples (e.g., 'package' for when a package was installed, 'failures' for errors). It also notes the platform restriction ('Only works on SUSE Linux'). It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the examples make the intended use clear.

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