Domain Overview History

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Fetch domain historical overview' and gives an endpoint; it does not describe what the historical data includes, time ranges, metric units, pagination, or any other runtime behavior.

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 sentence with a front-loaded verb and resource, followed by the endpoint in parentheses. There is no filler or redundant content; every part of the sentence earns its 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 and no annotations, so the description alone must provide sufficient context. It explains only the basic action and endpoint, but omits important context such as what metrics are returned, what time range is covered, and how this history tool relates to the broader domainOverview family. Parameter coverage is acceptable due to the schema, but overall context is thin.

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%, so the input schema already documents type, domain, and source clearly. The description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema handles the heavy lifting, so a baseline score of 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 verb and resource: 'Fetch domain historical overview' and includes the endpoint. The word 'historical' helps distinguish it from the sibling domainOverview, but it does not explicitly call out the difference or other related variants like domainOverviewWorldwide, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 word 'historical' implies this tool is for retrieving historical overview data rather than current data, giving some usage signal. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over the many sibling tools, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the use case.

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