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

The description labels this a 'Free read', which conflicts with the annotation destructiveHint=true while agreeing with readOnlyHint=true — the annotations are internally contradictory, and the description picks one side without resolving it, leaving an agent unsure whether calling this is safe. It does add real value beyond annotations (ordering, lazy-default behavior, run-type composition), but the safety claim is unreliable.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource definition, then usage, then parameter economy, with no filler sentences. The 'LAZY:' shorthand is terse and slightly cryptic but effectively signals the default limit posture.

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 two-parameter, read-oriented list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (per-run SEO/AEO/GEO snapshots), ordering, and the limit default. It omits any note on whether the list is paginated beyond the limit cap, but that is minor given the schema already states max 100.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description only echoes the default limit value and adds a soft 'raise only if needed' hint; it adds no format or syntax meaning for site_id or limit beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific resource (analysis snapshots / score history per run) with enough detail to distinguish it from get_score_trends, get_snapshot_diff, and list_analyses, and it discloses ordering ('newest first'). It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it differs from, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating at the top level.

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?

'Use to check whether recent fixes moved the scores' gives a concrete when-to-use scenario, and 'LAZY: default 20; raise limit only if needed' guides parameter behavior. No when-not-to-use or explicit alternative (e.g. vs get_score_trends) is offered, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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