query_history_event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with a safe read. It adds that the response includes full SQL and details, which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior when the key is unknown, or payload size.

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 tight sentence with no filler and the core payload front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the gaps elsewhere.

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, so the description should clarify the return; it partially does ('full SQL and details'). However, the one required parameter is unexplained, leaving the definition inadequate for correct invocation in some cases.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage on the single required 'key' parameter, the description carries the burden and fails to explain what a key is (query ID, hash, index, composite?). 'One query from the history' only hints at it.

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 names the resource (one query from the history) and the payload (full SQL and details), which is enough to distinguish it from list-oriented siblings like query_history or query_history_data. It lacks an explicit verb, but retrieval of a single item is unambiguous.

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 query_history, query_history_data, query_history_advisor, or the many other query_history_* siblings. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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