site-explorer-domain-rating-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 mentions 'retrieves,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., time-series data). For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it does hint at the need to use another tool ('doc') for schema details.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose clearly, and the second provides a prerequisite. It's front-loaded with the main function, but the second sentence about using the 'doc' tool feels like a workaround rather than integral guidance, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it's concise but could be more self-contained.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, output format, and differentiation from siblings. The mention of using 'doc' for schema hints at missing information, but doesn't fully address the gaps for effective tool 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'date range and grouping interval,' which loosely corresponds to 'date_from,' 'date_to,' and 'history_grouping,' and 'specified domain or URL' for 'target,' but doesn't explain parameter meanings, formats (e.g., date strings), or constraints. With 4 undocumented parameters, this adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's property names.

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 purpose: 'Retrieves the historical domain rating data for a specified domain or URL over a defined date range and grouping interval.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('historical domain rating data'), and scope ('domain or URL, date range, grouping interval'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-domain-rating' or 'site-explorer-metrics-history', which appear related, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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 minimal usage guidance. It includes 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema,' which is a prerequisite but not a contextual when-to-use guideline. There's no indication of when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., vs. 'site-explorer-domain-rating' for current data or other history tools), nor any exclusions or specific scenarios for its use.

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