get_app_score_history

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description details behavior around date resolution: reversed dates are swapped, future dates are clamped to today, and score is null on days without a snapshot. It also discloses the plan history depth cap and PLAN_LIMIT error, giving the agent strong expectations of tool 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 front-loaded with the core capability, followed by tightly packed but relevant behavioral details. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no redundant filler or restating of obvious schema content.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description clearly enumerates the return shape (app_id, app_title, resolved dates, history[] with date and score). It covers default behavior, error conditions, date edge cases, and ID requirements, making the tool fully comprehensible for an agent.

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?

Although the schema already covers all parameters with descriptions, the tool description adds critical semantics beyond the schema: app_id must be the numeric internal ID from list_applications, not the store bundle ID, and date windows are auto-corrected/capped. This significantly improves invocation correctness.

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 'Get the daily visibility score history of one application' with a specific verb and resource. It defines the visibility score concept and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_keyword_rank_history by noting that tool is for one keyword rank over time.

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 concrete when-to-use guidance: for app-level visibility history over time, defaulting to last 30 days, with explicit alternative get_keyword_rank_history for keyword-level rank data. It also specifies important constraints like the 400-day cap, PLAN_LIMIT errors, and ID source requirements.

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