get_landings_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the core behavior ('Shows which page ranked on each date'), which is useful context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention return format, pagination, or constraints like date formatting, so the transparency is moderate but not comprehensive.

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?

The description consists of two concise sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose ('Landing page history') and immediately follows with the key behavior ('Shows which page ranked on each date'), making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given 5 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to fully enable correct invocation. Users are left to guess date formats, search engine identifiers, and important context about the returned data. The description provides a high-level overview but lacks the detail needed for reliable usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining the parameters. It only vaguely refers to 'a specific keyword' (mapping to keyword_id) and does not explain site_id, search_engine, from_date, or to_date. The bare parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning about formats or allowed values.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Landing page history for a specific keyword. Shows which page ranked on each date.' This identifies the resource (landing page history) and the specific scope (keyword), which differentiates it from siblings like get_landing_matches that likely focus on current or matching data rather than historical per-date ranks.

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 implies usage for viewing historical ranking data for a keyword, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as serp_analytics or get_landing_matches. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, leaving usage to be inferred from the phrase 'for a specific keyword'.

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