get_site_moves

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get history'), but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, data format, or pagination. For a tool with no annotations, this is inadequate—it lacks details on what 'history' entails, such as time range or event types, leaving behavioral traits unclear.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get history'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to the tool's purpose, achieving optimal conciseness.

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 tool has an output schema (which handles return values), the description's minimalism is partially excused. However, with no annotations, low schema coverage, and multiple sibling tools, it lacks context on usage scenarios and parameter details. It's borderline adequate but leaves gaps in guiding the agent effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'site_url' implicitly but adds no meaning beyond the schema's basic type. No details on URL format, validation, or how it relates to moves are provided. With one required parameter and zero coverage, the description fails to enhance 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 retrieves 'history of site moves/migrations', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_sites' or 'get_url_info', leaving the specific scope ambiguous. The purpose is understandable but lacks precision about what distinguishes this historical data from other site-related 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_sites', 'get_url_info', and 'get_crawl_stats', the description fails to specify scenarios where site move history is needed over general site data or other metrics. This omission leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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