site-explorer-keywords-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 the tool retrieves data (implying read-only) and hints at segmentation and grouping, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 reasonably concise with two sentences, but the second sentence ('Use doc tool first...') is a workaround for poor schema documentation rather than a core tool explanation. The first sentence is front-loaded with key information, but overall structure could be improved by integrating parameter hints more directly.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It outlines the core purpose but misses critical details: parameter meanings, behavioral constraints, output format, and differentiation from siblings. The advice to use another tool for schema details indicates inadequate self-contained documentation.

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 'website or URL,' 'search position ranges,' and 'time interval,' which loosely map to 'target,' 'select' (implied), and 'date_from/date_to/history_grouping,' but it doesn't explain the purpose of 'country,' 'mode,' or 'protocol,' nor does it clarify required vs. optional parameters or expected formats. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 tool's purpose: retrieving historical data on organic keywords for a website/URL, segmented by search position ranges and grouped by time intervals. It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('historical data'), and scope ('organic keywords'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-organic-keywords' or 'keywords-explorer-volume-history'.

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, only advising to 'use doc tool first to get the real input schema.' It doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'site-explorer-organic-keywords' for current data or 'keywords-explorer-volume-history' for keyword volume trends), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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