history_sql

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it exposes the data model (tables, columns) and the semantic meaning of qkey as the multilingual match key. It stops short of disclosing row caps, cost, or query restrictions.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and read-only constraint, followed by a compact table/column inventory. Efficient and well-ordered, with only the brief qkey clarification as an addendum.

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?

For a raw-SQL tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation) and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the critical data model. What it omits is usage context relative to the numerous structured history/analytics siblings, leaving the agent to guess when raw SQL is the right choice.

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 must carry the burden. It does document the queryable schema, which is essential for writing the `sql` parameter, but it never explains the `limit` parameter or any syntax expectations for the SQL string.

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 ("Run a read-only SELECT on the history database") and then names the queryable tables and their columns, so the agent knows exactly what it can query. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like history_query or query_search_analytics, so it falls short of a 5.

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 reach for raw SQL versus the many structured siblings (history_query, history_trend, query_search_analytics). The only constraint given is "read-only SELECT," which is a restriction, not a routing rule.

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