site-explorer-total-search-volume-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 the tool retrieves data (implying read-only behavior) but doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. The mention of using the 'doc tool' hints at complexity but doesn't clarify behavioral traits beyond the basic operation.

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, and the second gives a procedural note. It's front-loaded with the core function, but the second sentence about the 'doc tool' might be better placed elsewhere (e.g., in usage guidelines). It's concise but could be more structured to separate purpose from instructions.

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, no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error cases, or how parameters interact (e.g., grouping effects). The tool likely returns historical data series, but without output schema or description details, an agent would struggle to use it correctly beyond basic 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 9 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description mentions 'time period and grouping,' which loosely maps to parameters like date_from, date_to, and history_grouping, but it doesn't explain any parameters in detail (e.g., what 'mode' or 'volume_mode' mean). This adds minimal value beyond the schema, insufficient to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 total organic search volume, traffic, and traffic value for a site/URL over a time period with grouping. It specifies the resource (site/URL) and metrics (volume, traffic, value), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from similar siblings like 'site-explorer-keywords-history' or 'site-explorer-metrics-history', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context is given about when this tool is appropriate compared to other site-explorer tools (e.g., 'site-explorer-metrics-history'), and there are no explicit exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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