История обхода сайта

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it explains the response structure (indicators with arrays of {date, value} by status key), the meaning of OTHER, and the requirement for confirmed rights. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Every sentence in this description earns its place: output structure, status key semantics, default behavior, and permissions. It is front-loaded with the main verb and object, and the length is proportionate to the tool's complexity. No filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description fully compensates by detailing the return object shape (indicators with arrays of {date, value} per HTTP status category). Combined with the default period and authorization requirement, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by noting the default current-day period and that date_from/date_to define the custom period, which is not in the schema. It does not repeat parameter formats, but it enriches the temporal semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and object ('Возвращает историю обхода сайта роботом') and immediately clarifies the resource (crawl history by HTTP status codes). It distinguishes itself from sibling history tools like get_search_queries_history by focusing on HTTP status code aggregates, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clear usage context: it states the default time range (current day), how to set a custom period via date_from/date_to, and the prerequisite of confirmed site rights. It does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for most agents.

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