site-explorer-pages-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 mentions 'retrieves historical data' and grouping by time interval, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient to inform an agent about operational behavior.

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: one states the purpose, and another gives a prerequisite. It's front-loaded with the core function, but the second sentence about using 'doc tool' is somewhat tangential and could be integrated more smoothly. Overall, it's concise but not optimally structured for clarity.

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 (7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or detailed parameter usage. The mention of using 'doc tool' hints at missing schema info 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only vaguely references 'domain, URL, or section' (hinting at 'target'), 'time interval' (hinting at 'date_from'/'date_to'), and 'grouping' (hinting at 'history_grouping'), but doesn't explain the 4 other parameters (country, mode, protocol) or provide format/constraint details. This adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.

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 about pages from a specified domain, URL, or section of a site, grouped by a chosen time interval.' It specifies the action (retrieves), resource (historical data about pages), and scope (domain/URL/section with time grouping). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-keywords-history' or 'site-explorer-refdomains-history' which also retrieve historical data but for different resources.

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: 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema.' This suggests a prerequisite but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other site-explorer history tools) or what contexts it's suited for. No explicit when/when-not guidance or sibling comparisons are included.

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