Load domain overview history

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing the auth requirement (write scope), the economic risk (a cache miss spends provider budget), the cost-gating mechanism, and the snapshot_expired failure mode. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, and the critical cost/scope constraints are stated up front. Minor deduction because the primary purpose ('loads the historical index series...') is buried after the requirements rather than leading.

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 7-parameter, 5-required mutation-capable tool with no output schema, the description covers auth scope, cost gating, cache behavior, and the snapshot expiry precondition. It does not explain the return shape, but with no output schema that is a smaller gap; overall adequate and then some.

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 every parameter, including max_cost_cents='Use zero for an explicit cache-only attempt.' The description restates that constraint and frames why max_cost_cents exists, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb+resource: loading 'the separately priced historical index series for an unexpired Domain Overview snapshot.' This distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_domain_overview and load_domain_overview_keywords/pages by calling out the historical index series, though it never names an alternative explicitly. Clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions: API write scope, an explicit max_cost_cents, and zero for a cache-only attempt, plus the failure case that snapshot_expired means analysis must run first. It stops short of naming sibling tools to use instead (e.g., analyze_domain_overview to refresh the snapshot), so it is strong context without explicit alternatives.

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