site-explorer-metrics-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 states this is a retrieval operation (implied read-only) but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, data freshness, or what format the historical data returns. For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, 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...') feels like a workaround rather than integral guidance. The first sentence is front-loaded with core functionality, but could be more structured to separate purpose from parameter hints.

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 (9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It outlines the basic purpose but fails to provide adequate parameter guidance, behavioral context, or output expectations. The instruction to use another tool for schema details highlights rather than solves the completeness gap.

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 0% schema description coverage for 9 parameters, the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'domain, URL, or path' (hinting at 'target'), 'date range' (hinting at 'date_from' and 'date_to'), and 'grouping interval' (hinting at 'history_grouping'), but leaves 6 parameters completely unexplained. The instruction to 'Use doc tool first' acknowledges but doesn't resolve this deficiency.

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 historical data on key organic and paid search traffic and cost metrics for a specified domain, URL, or path over a selectable date range and grouping interval.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('historical data'), and scope ('organic and paid search traffic and cost metrics'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-metrics' or 'site-explorer-metrics-by-country'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema,' this is a technical instruction rather than usage context. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus other site-explorer tools, or any exclusions.

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