query_history_answer

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read. The description adds genuine value by noting the call may return 'progress while it works', alerting the agent to a partial/in-flight result. However, it says nothing about how the key is obtained or how often to poll.

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?

One compact sentence with the key idea (in-app answer plus progress state) front-loaded and no filler. Slightly cryptic, but every word earns its place.

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?

No output schema and no meaningful annotations beyond readOnly, so the description should explain the return shape (answer vs. progress indicator), how to obtain the key, and polling expectations. It covers only the high-level purpose, leaving a documented async tool under-specified.

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% for the single required 'key' parameter, so the description carries the full burden. It implies the key identifies a query, but gives no format, source, or uniqueness semantics, leaving the agent unable to know what value to pass.

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 identifies the resource (Claude's in-app answer for one query) and hints at an async/progress state, but the verb is only implied and the resource description ('one query') is vague. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like query_history_ask or query_history_assistant, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling that presumably initiates or cancels this workflow (query_history_ask / query_history_ask_cancel). The agent gets no routing signal.

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