history_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes the trigger conditions ('older history', 'explicit ask'), not what the tool actually does behaviorally—such as whether it is read-only, how it handles permissions, whether it searches across accounts in real-time, or what the return format is. This is a significant transparency gap.

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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a direct usage condition. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It doesn't explain how results are ordered, whether there are date-range filters, how 'cross-account' affects results, or what the response looks like. Sibling tool names provide some context, but the tool is incomplete for an agent to use it correctly in varied scenarios.

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 only 17% (only include_technical has a description), and the description text adds no parameter-level meaning. The mention of 'older date/source/topic' weakly hints at the query/source parameters, but limit, project, and provider are entirely unexplained. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('older cross-account history'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like history_get_recent_context or history_get_thread. The phrase 'cross-account' adds scope, making the tool's unique function clear.

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 description explicitly states when to call the tool: 'when the user explicitly asks to search past history, names an older date/source/topic, or recent context is insufficient.' This provides strong conditional guidance, though it doesn't name specific alternative tools for the 'when not' cases.

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