query_history_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is known, but the description adds nothing beyond that: it does not explain what 'refresh' does (re-query, cache reload?), what range is affected, or what the list contains. For a data-fetching tool the description contributes almost no 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is terse rather than padded, but the terseness comes at the cost of under-specification for a 3-parameter 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 three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no guidance distinguishing it from numerous query_history siblings, the description is not complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly beyond guessing defaults.

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 0% and the three parameters (hours, limit, min_ms) are completely undocumented. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap; an agent cannot know what hours/limit/min_ms control.

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 verb ('Refresh') and resource ('Query History list'), so the basic action is discernible. However, it does not differentiate from the many sibling tools such as query_history, query_history_event, or query_history_trends, leaving the agent unsure how this 'list refresh' differs from those.

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 tool versus the many query_history_* siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is only vaguely implied by the word 'refresh'.

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