Get visibility score history

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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: null scores on days without snapshots, default 30-day window, 400-day cap, plan history depth with PLAN_LIMIT error, date reversal swapping, and future-date clamping. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and score definition, then return shape, defaults, limits, errors, and the sibling alternative. Dense but every sentence carries operational information; nothing is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly documents return values (app_id, app_title, resolved from/to, history[] shape). Error behavior, caps, defaults, and parameter caveats are all covered, so an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine value beyond the schema by warning that app_id must be the numeric internal ID from list_applications rather than the store bundle ID, and by restating the from/to defaults and date semantics. It does not add format details for from/to beyond what the schema already says.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the daily visibility score history of one application') and defines what the score means (0-100 discoverability across a stable keyword set). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_keyword_rank_history, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it ('For one keyword rank over time, use get_keyword_rank_history'), plus a prerequisite: use the numeric internal ID from list_applications, not the store bundle ID. When-to-use is unambiguous.

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