get_rt_project_url_serp_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates key behavioral traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'Get'), specifies what data is returned ('historical position data, search volumes, and optional keyword tags'), and importantly discloses that 'This method does not consume API credits' - a critical operational detail not captured elsewhere.

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 is efficiently structured with three sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the core functionality, differentiating from alternatives, and providing additional behavioral context. There is no wasted text, and the most critical information (what the tool does and how it differs) appears first.

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?

For a complex tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description provides strong contextual completeness. It clearly explains the tool's purpose, differentiation, and key behavioral aspects. The main gap is the lack of output format details (what the return structure looks like), but given the detailed parameter schema and clear functional description, it's mostly sufficient for agent understanding.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, mentioning only that it returns data 'where your specified domain/URL ranks' (related to the 'domain' parameter). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 specific action ('Get ranking history'), resource ('YOUR domain's positions'), and scope ('across all tracked keywords'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'get_rt_project_keyword_serp_history' by contrasting their outputs (domain-only vs. full top-100), providing excellent differentiation.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Perfect for tracking your own performance over time without competitor noise') and directly names the alternative sibling tool ('Unlike get_rt_project_keyword_serp_history'). It also includes a practical usage scenario that helps the agent understand the appropriate context.

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