search_historical_profiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the search action and a use case, but doesn't disclose whether it is a read-only operation, what the result format looks like, or any ordering/pagination behavior. The verb 'Search' implies read-only, but it's not explicit.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple search tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain return value expectations, but it doesn't mention whether results are a list, sorted, or how many historical versions are returned. The tool is simple though, and the description covers the basic purpose and a usage scenario, so it's minimally complete but with clear 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage of the single parameter 'query', with a clear description ('Profile name or partial name to search for'). The description adds only 'by name', which reinforces the schema but adds no extra semantic detail, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), specifies the resource ('historical versions of profiles'), and narrows the scope ('by name'). It also mentions a concrete use case ('finding old recipe iterations'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like search_history or list_profiles.

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 'Useful for finding old recipe iterations' gives a clear use case, but the description does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when another tool (e.g., search_history) might be more appropriate. It implies usage context but lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools.

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