Get rank history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the pagination and date-filter context. However, it doesn't describe pagination behavior (cursor handling, default limits) or whether results are chronological or newest-first, which would be useful. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the core purpose. All meaningful info is packed efficiently.

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 read-only list endpoint with pagination, the description is adequate but missing key details: date format for since/until, default response ordering, page size default, and how cursor pagination works. With no output schema, return structure is undocumented. The 7-parameter surface with 29% coverage needs more detail to be fully complete.

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 only 29% (only keyword_id and project_id have descriptions). The description mentions 'date, status, and pagination filters' which loosely maps to since/until/status/limit/cursor, but provides no format details for since/until (date format?) or meaning of cursor. With 5 of 7 parameters having zero documentation in both schema and description, this is a significant gap.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'List historical rank checks for a keyword' with specific scope. It names the filters (date, status, pagination) which helps distinguish it from related tools like get_rank_check_result, list_keywords, and export_rank_history. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives to differentiate.

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 states what is listed (historical rank checks) and mentions filters, giving implied usage context. It doesn't explicitly note when to use this vs export_rank_history (which likely exports the same data) or get_rank_check_result (single result). No explicit exclusions or alternatives named.

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