sql_editor_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: results are ordered newest first and SQL text is truncated to a preview, which warns the agent not to expect full statements. It stops short of covering pagination or rate/limit behavior.

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 naming the resource, the ordering, and the truncation caveat, then routing to the sibling. Every clause earns its place with 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?

It adequately covers return format (preview text), ordering, and the route to full text, which matters since there is no output schema. But with three undocumented parameters and no pagination guidance, an agent cannot reliably filter or page, leaving the definition materially incomplete.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it mentions none of limit, search, or before_id. In particular before_id is a pagination cursor whose semantics (fetch entries older than this id) are entirely unstated, which is a real gap for an agent trying to page through history.

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 resource (SQL Editor run history) and a meaningful property (newest first), and explicitly distinguishes itself from sql_editor_history_entry for full text. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list', but the resource and ordering are 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?

The parenthetical implies when to use the sibling ('full text with sql_editor_history_entry'), so there is partial routing guidance. However, it never says when to use this tool over other history siblings like query_history or query_history_data, nor does it state prerequisites, leaving selection largely inferred.

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