get_historical_rank

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals what the tool returns (traffic, keyword counts, position distribution) and implies it is a read-only operation ('Get'). However, it does not disclose potential behaviors like required permissions, rate limits, or whether the query is computationally heavy. The name itself suggests a safe read, so moderate transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences. The first states the purpose directly, and the second elaborates on what is shown without fluff. Every word earns its place, and the description is front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the return values and context. It lacks specifics like time range or data granularity, but these are not essential given the tool's simplicity. It is complete enough for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly, though slightly more detail would push it to a 5.

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%: both 'domain' and 'country_code' have descriptive text. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond summarizing the output metrics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb+resource combination: 'Get historical ranking overview for a domain.' It clarifies the scope by listing the key metrics shown ('traffic, keyword counts, position distribution'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_domain_rank (likely current rank) or get_keyword_trends (keyword-specific trends).

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to see how organic presence changed over time. It implies a historical analysis use case, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusions. This fits a 'clear context, no exclusions' rating.

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