Get Sqi 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 says nothing about required credentials, whether the call is a safe read, pagination, or default date behavior. The one useful hint is 'over time', implying a time-series read, but that is thin for a 4-param tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentence with no filler and the core concept front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse to be maximally useful given the metadata gap.

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-value explanation is not needed, and the schema fully documents inputs. However, with no annotations and no usage context, the definition is only minimally complete for distinguishing this history tool from its numerous siblings.

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 each of the four parameters (date_to, date_from, host_id, user_id) is already documented in the schema, including formats and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so 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 (Get) and resource (Site Quality Index history), and expands the SQI/ИКС acronym, which helps an agent identify the exact metric. It is clear but does not differentiate from the many sibling *_history tools beyond naming the resource.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that user_id/host_id are required), and no comparison to alternatives like get_indexing_history or get_search_urls_history. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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