История показателей запросов

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds the response format (indicators object with date/value arrays), default period (last week), and permission requirement, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose and output shape, the second gives a use case, and the third covers defaults and prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the response structure, default period, and required permissions. It does not explicitly specify default behavior for query_indicators when omitted, but overall it gives an agent sufficient context to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already well documented (e.g., date_from, query_indicators enums, device_type_indicator). The description repeats the default period but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns the history of aggregate indicators for ALL site search queries, with a specific structure (indicators object with key-value arrays). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_popular_queries (which returns individual queries) and get_indexing_history (indexing, not queries).

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 a clear use case: 'Подходит для динамики видимости сайта' (suitable for site visibility dynamics) and states a prerequisite (verified site rights). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is enough for an agent to select it for date-based aggregate trends.

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