search_history_sessions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a list of matching sessions but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then provides a parameter section with concise explanations, and ends with a return value statement. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 has 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage but an output schema exists, the description provides adequate parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context. The description compensates for the schema gap with parameter explanations but doesn't address behavioral aspects that would be important for a search operation (like result ordering, pagination, or error handling).

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 description explicitly lists all 5 parameters with brief explanations, providing meaningful semantic context beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. It clarifies what each parameter filters (e.g., 'year: Filter by year'), though it could provide more detail about format expectations (e.g., month as '08' for August is helpful but could mention two-digit format requirement).

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 as 'Search DJ history sessions with various filters,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_history_sessions' or 'get_recent_sessions,' which appear to be related read operations on the same resource type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_history_sessions' or 'get_recent_sessions.' It mentions 'various filters' but doesn't specify what makes this tool distinct from other history-related tools in the sibling list.

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