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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the data scope (position history up to 365 days), the inclusion of SERP features (AI Overview, featured snippet, AIO citations), and the constraint that the keyword must be tracked. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention any prerequisites beyond tracking, or describe error behaviors (e.g., unfound keyword, untracked keyword). It adds some behavioral context but not full transparency.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds key qualifiers (365 days, SERP features) with no filler. It is compact and easy to parse.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what an agent can expect. It states the general return shape (position history with SERP features) but does not clarify the structure of the response, the meaning of each SERP feature, or how optional parameters affect the output. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient for confident invocation.

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 50%; keyword and project_id are documented in the schema, but days and device have no descriptions. The description mentions 'fino a 365 giorni', which hints at the days parameter, but does not explain how days controls the history length or that device filters by desktop/mobile. It fails to compensate for the two undocumented parameters.

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: 'Storico posizioni di una keyword tracciata' (history of positions of a tracked keyword), with a clear scope (up to 365 days) and a list of SERP features. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_keywords (keyword list), get_keyword_gap (comparison), and get_youtube_rankings (YouTube-specific).

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 implies the tool is for retrieving a keyword's position history, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives, no prerequisites beyond 'tracked keyword', and no exclusions. There is no mention of when to use get_keywords vs get_keyword_history, or what makes this tool the right choice.

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