Get Internal Broken Links History

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only describes the data (link counts over time). It says nothing about permission requirements, rate limits, default time-window behavior when date_from/date_to are omitted, or aggregation granularity. The output schema covers the return shape, but behavioral context is thin.

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 efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is arguably too terse given the missing guidance, but the sentence itself is clean and earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the input schema fully documents parameters. However, for a tool with no annotations, the description provides no usage routing relative to its obvious sibling and no behavioral notes, leaving it minimally adequate rather than 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 100% and every parameter (user_id, host_id, date_from, date_to) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter semantics 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 ('Get') and resource ('history of broken internal links count over time'), making the time-series nature clear. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_internal_broken_links (current snapshot) via 'history,' but never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to the alternative (get_internal_broken_links for the current count versus this history tool). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the word 'history.'

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