search_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses query syntax (FTS5 operators) and the return format (snippets showing match location), but says nothing about scope limits, pagination, permissions, or performance characteristics of searching all messages.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact Args block and a one-line Returns note. The Args section partially duplicates the schema but earns its place by adding syntax and enum details; no filler.

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?

For a simple three-parameter search tool with an output schema present, the definition covers purpose, all parameters, and match behavior adequately. Only scope bounds (e.g., whether all conversations or a window) and pagination are left unspecified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains query FTS5 syntax, enumerates all eight valid topic values not present in the schema, and documents the limit default. Every parameter gains meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+mechanism: 'Search across all Claude conversation messages using full-text search.' This clearly distinguishes the search action from sibling browse/list/get tools by name and scope, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus browse_conversations, list_all_topics, or get_conversation_messages. The only implicit cue is that a query is required, but no conditions or exclusions are stated.

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