keywords-explorer-volume-history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention potential limitations such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, which is efficient. However, the second sentence ('Use doc tool first to get the real input schema') is somewhat redundant and could be integrated more smoothly. Overall, it is brief but includes an awkward procedural note.

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 complexity of a 4-parameter tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and output format, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions the parameters ('keyword,' 'country,' 'date range') but does not explain their semantics, formats (e.g., date format, country codes), or constraints (e.g., required vs. optional). It adds some meaning by naming the parameters but fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 ('Retrieves historical search volume data'), resource ('for a specified keyword'), and scope ('within a given country and date range'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'keywords-explorer-overview' or 'keywords-explorer-volume-by-country' by focusing on historical data rather than current or country-specific volumes.

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 includes a directive to 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema,' which provides some procedural guidance but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'keywords-explorer-volume-by-country' for current data or 'site-explorer-keywords-history' for site-specific history). No explicit when/when-not or alternative tool recommendations are provided.

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