Get Page Authority 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 states returns historical values but does not disclose potential behavioral traits such as data retention limits, rate limits, error handling for invalid targets, or whether it requires authentication. The description is too sparse to inform an agent about operational aspects.

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?

Single sentence, very concise, but arguably too brief. It front-loads the core purpose but omits important details that would improve usefulness without adding significant length. The conciseness is acceptable but not optimal.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description should at least hint at the output structure (e.g., 'returns time series of InLink Rank scores'). As is, it only says 'information about the historical values,' which is vague. Tool has 4 parameters and is one of many similar data tools, making this incompleteness a gap for correct invocation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional context beyond the schema; it only restates that the tool returns historical values. No parameter-specific guidance is provided, but the schema itself is sufficient for basic understanding.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns historical InLink Rank values for a target page. Verb 'returns information' is specific, and 'historical values of InLink Rank' distinguishes it from sibling tools like DATA_getPageAuthority (current value) and DATA_getDomainAuthorityHistory (domain-level). Could more explicitly contrast with similar siblings, but purpose is clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like DATA_getPageAuthority or DATA_getDomainAuthorityHistory. No mention of prerequisites or typical use cases. The tool's applicability is implied only by its name and description.

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