tokmeter_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: records exist only while transcripts are kept, and the default all scope searches only the last 14 days. It does not describe pagination or rate limits, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 front-loaded, efficient, and free of filler. It moves from purpose to return behavior to the key retention caveat without 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?

For a ten-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral caveat and the default scope well. It is nearly complete, though it does not detail the fields returned in each individual record.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all ten parameters. The description usefully groups the filters and clarifies that all scope means the last 14 days, but it does not explain limit or sort_by, and the line saying records are sorted by timestamp does not acknowledge the sort_by parameter.

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 and resource: search across individual token usage records with named filters. It distinguishes the tool as record-level rather than aggregate, but it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools such as tokmeter_pulse or tokmeter_leaderboard.

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 gives clear usage guidance: use this to find specific usage events or investigate high-cost records. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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