get_keyword_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it merely restates the tool's name. It doesn't disclose return format, pagination, any read-only characteristics beyond the verb 'Get', or limitations like data granularity. Feels like a one-line placeholder.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read tool with a complete schema, the description is adequately scoped but lacks output format details since no output schema exists. It doesn't explain what the history data looks like or how the days parameter shapes the returned series, leaving some ambiguity.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for keyword_id (format) and days (range/default), so the description adds minimal parameter-level meaning. The phrase 'specific tracked keyword' reinforces keyword_id but doesn't clarify how days affects the response.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ranking position history') scoped to 'a specific tracked keyword', which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_serp_results (current SERP) or get_project_keywords (list). The 'over time' aspect uniquely identifies this as a historical tracking tool.

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 historical ranking data but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't reference sibling tools like get_serp_results for current rankings, leaving the decision to the agent based on the name alone.

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