search_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that the data source is a local SQLite store (no network call, historical data only) and 'search' implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about result ordering, matching semantics (substring vs token), or what a hit contains.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 five-parameter, all-optional read tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, this is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is what a result record looks like and whether filters combine, but the schema handles most of the agent's needs.

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 schema already documents all five parameters including formats and the default/max for limit. The description's enumeration of keyword, date, method, and status code merely restates the schema and omits limit and combination behavior (AND vs OR across filters).

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?

Specific verb (search) plus resource (local SQLite API history) and the four filter dimensions. It is clearly distinct from execute_request and get_request_detail by virtue of being a search over stored history, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'search ... history' implies the retrieval use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_request_detail for full payloads, and no note that export_history is the bulk alternative. Usage must be inferred from the name and description.

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