history_query

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only/idempotent profile, so the description rightly spends its words elsewhere: it discloses that queries are merged across spellings and that matching is done on a multilingual match key (e.g. Arabic diacritics, spaceless CJK). That is real behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it omits any note on default limit/pagination 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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the parameter hints. Every sentence earns its place; only the trailing newline/formatting is slightly rough.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, for a 10-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no usage guidance, the description is far from sufficient: an agent cannot confidently fill eight of the ten arguments from the text alone.

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% across 10 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the values accepted by 'dimensions' and the matching semantics of 'query_contains', which is genuinely useful, but leaves site_url, start_date/end_date format, search_type, device, country, page_contains, and limit entirely undocumented.

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 and resource ('query the local history') plus a scope qualifier ('grouped by dimensions'), which tells the agent this is an aggregation/grouping query. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as history_trend, history_compare, or history_sql, which the agent must otherwise infer.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling alternatives in the same history_* family. The agent is left to infer that this is the general-purpose grouped-history tool rather than history_trend/history_compare/history_sql.

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