search_query_history

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds in explaining what data is stored (DAX query, summary, result shape, CSV path), result ordering (newest-first), and keyword matching logic (matches summary, DAX text, result name). Minor gap: does not explicitly state this is read-only/safe, though implied by 'Search'.

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?

Efficient multi-paragraph structure: purpose upfront, data content second, bullet list for use cases, and usage mechanics (ordering/keyword) in the final sentence. Zero redundancy; every sentence adds value beyond the structured schema.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description appropriately omits return value details. It comprehensively covers use cases, search semantics, and result ordering. Minor gap: does not mention that all parameters are optional or explicitly contrast with delete_query_log_entry.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description compensates well for 'keyword' (explaining intent-based searching and matching fields) and implies 'dataset_id' usage ('Find previous queries for a dataset'). However, 'since_days' and 'limit' are completely undocumented, leaving gaps for optional parameters that control result volume.

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 opening sentence 'Search the local query history log for prior DAX executions' provides a specific verb (Search), resource (local query history log), and scope (prior DAX executions). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like execute_dax (which creates entries) and delete_query_log_entry (which removes them).

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?

Excellent explicit guidance including four specific bullet-point scenarios (reuse queries, locate CSVs, audit data, avoid expensive re-runs). It explicitly references sibling tool execute_dax ('Every successful `execute_dax` call is logged'), clarifying the relationship between execution and history retrieval.

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