get_positioning_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful interpretive behavior beyond that: a null entry means an unanalyzable homepage, not a zero or empty result, which an agent cannot infer from the schema or 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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler; the pagination cue and the null-semantics warning are each front-loaded and earn their place.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably: it points to the dashboard's summary shape, gives a pagination signal (pagination.hasMore), and explains the null convention. The actual summary fields are deferred to another tool rather than spelled out, so it is strong but not fully self-contained.

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 page, limit, and projectId are fully documented in the schema with defaults and bounds. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 paginated history of Positioning monitoring runs'), which distinguishes it from the dashboard-style siblings by making clear this is the run-history listing. It links explicitly to get_positioning_dashboard for shape, though it never mentions get_positioning_run_detail, so differentiation from all siblings is incomplete.

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?

Provides operational guidance on pagination ('Check pagination.hasMore to fetch additional pages'), which is a real usage instruction. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over get_positioning_dashboard or get_positioning_run_detail, leaving the selection context to inference.

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