Get Search Urls 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 load. The 'get' verb implies a read-only operation and the output schema covers the return shape, but the description discloses nothing about permissions (e.g. user_id ownership), rate limits, or how much history is retained. Some value, but significant gaps remain for a no-annotation tool.

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 no filler, and the core resource is front-loaded. The phrasing 'pages count in Yandex search results' is slightly awkward but does not waste space.

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?

Parameters are fully documented in the schema and an output schema exists, so the return format is covered. The gaps are the missing usage routing against many similar siblings and the lack of any behavioral context (auth, scope), which leaves the definition under-specified for a 4-required-param tool.

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 all four parameters (date format, host_id format, user_id). The description adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (get) and resource (history of pages count in Yandex search results) with a clear temporal framing, so the agent knows what it returns. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like get_search_urls_samples, get_search_urls_events_history, or get_indexing_history, which all concern historical Yandex search data.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative siblings that also return history data. Usage is only weakly implied by the name and the phrase 'over time'; an agent must guess which of the several history tools to pick.

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