search_history

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals a non-obvious availability requirement ('Needs superlog-journal to have been running at the time') and clarifies the persistence boundary (on-disk journal vs. in-memory ring). It doesn't explicitly state the operation is read-only or describe the return format, but for a history search those are relatively minor omissions.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: the core capability, the when-to-use guidance, and the prerequisite are each given exactly one sentence. The most important scoping information is front-loaded before the alternative tool names appear.

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 tool with 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the clear scope statement, explicit sibling routing, and prerequisite cover what an agent needs to decide to call it. It doesn't document return shape, but the schema descriptions, especially for limit and since, already communicate result-set behavior, so nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces the time-window concept ('hours or days of history', 'what happened at 3am') which maps to the since/until parameters, but it adds no new parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Search the on-disk journal,' and immediately distinguishes it from the live in-memory ring ('not the few minutes the hub keeps in memory'). This makes it unmistakably different from sibling tools tail_logs and search_logs.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('what happened at 3am' or anything older than the live ring) and names the alternatives that cannot see that far back ('tail_logs and search_logs cannot see that far back'). It also gives a clear prerequisite: 'Needs superlog-journal to have been running at the time.'

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