get_keywords_serp_pageEvolution

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the purpose without detailing behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output format might be. For a tool with 4 required parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap, as the agent lacks crucial information about how the tool behaves and what to expect in return.

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 a single, efficient sentence in French that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse. However, it could be improved by adding a brief English translation or more detail, but as is, it avoids waste and is structurally sound.

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 (4 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage), the description is incomplete. It does not provide enough context for the agent to understand how to use the tool effectively, what the parameters mean, or what the output will be. For a tool with such rich contextual needs, the description falls short, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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 25% (only the 'keyword' parameter has a description as 'Seed keyword'), so the description must compensate for the low coverage. However, the description adds no meaning beyond what the input schema provides—it does not explain the purpose of 'first_date', 'second_date', or 'url', or provide context on their formats or relationships. With 3 out of 4 parameters undocumented in both schema and description, the description fails to enhance parameter understanding.

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 states the tool's purpose in French ('Obtenir l'évolution des pages SERP des mots-clés'), which translates to 'Get the evolution of SERP pages for keywords.' This provides a clear verb ('get') and resource ('evolution of SERP pages for keywords'), but it's somewhat vague about the exact nature of the evolution (e.g., ranking changes, content updates). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on SERP page evolution, unlike tools like 'get_keywords_find' or 'get_keywords_related', but lacks specificity in how it differs from 'get_keywords_serp_compare' or 'get_keywords_serp_availableDates'.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_keywords_serp_compare' or 'get_keywords_serp_availableDates', leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name and description alone. This lack of context makes it unclear in what scenarios this tool is preferred over others.

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