Advanced Search Tool History (Legacy)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context about query syntax (ID lookup, semantic search) without contradicting annotations. However, it does not disclose potential performance implications or pagination behavior, which would be useful beyond annotations.

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 front-loads the purpose but uses a list-like structure with colons, making it slightly verbose. It conveys necessary information without excessive padding, though it could be more tightly written.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description provides key usage context (query types and syntax). It does not cover edge cases, error handling, or result limits beyond the schema, but for a search tool with moderate complexity, it is adequately complete.

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 80% (4/5 params described). The description adds value by illustrating query patterns (e.g., 'id:xxxxx', 'user_email:test@gmail.com') that go beyond the schema's brief descriptions. The user_google_email parameter is not addressed, but overall the description enhances parameter understanding.

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 explicitly states 'Advanced search through historical tool responses' with supported query types (ID lookup, filtered, natural language), clearly defining the tool's functionality and distinguishing it from siblings like search_docs or search_messages.

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 usage for searching historical tool responses with various query formats but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., for other data types). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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