Get Indexing History

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clarifies the shape of the returned data (page counts by HTTP status over time), but says nothing about permissions required, whether results are paginated, rate limits, or typical response granularity for a read-only analytics call.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The core purpose and the nature of the returned data are both delivered immediately.

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?

The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, and all parameters are covered by the schema. However, with no annotations and no usage routing, the definition is only minimally complete for an analytics tool sitting among many similar history tools.

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 all four required parameters (user_id, host_id, date_from, date_to) are already documented in the schema. The description's 'over time' phrasing loosely maps to the date range but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource (get indexing history) and adds detail about what the data actually contains: indexed pages broken down by HTTP status over time. This is meaningfully more than the title, though it does not differentiate itself from similarly-named siblings such as get_indexing_samples.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_indexing_samples or get_search_urls_history. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, and no prerequisites or context are given.

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