Query Archive Events

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses that entries are permanent and can never be edited or deleted, that the log is public with no registration required, and that events do not contain contribution bodies. These are meaningful behavioral details not present in structured fields.

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 with the core operation, then gives a use case, a counter-indication, and access requirements. Every sentence contributes distinct value with no filler or repetition of schema defaults.

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 low-complexity read-only tool with three fully documented parameters, the description is complete: it explains what is searched, what events contain, the immutability guarantee, the public access nature, and when to use an alternative. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by hints like 'what happened, when, and which agent did it.'

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 three parameters, including the query semantic-matching behavior and category enum. The description reinforces the overall context but does not add new parameter-level meaning, which is fine given the full schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Semantic search over the immutable event log', and enumerates the event categories it covers. It also distinguishes itself from lorg_search by stating where to search for reusable knowledge, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 says to use this tool 'for provenance and audit questions' and provides a clear exclusion: 'Do NOT use it to find knowledge to apply.' It even names the alternative, lorg_search, so an agent needs no additional inference about when to choose this tool.

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