history_trend

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that data comes from local history and supports any length of time, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not cover pagination, rate limits, auth needs, or result 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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core metrics, granularity choices, data source, and range flexibility without any filler. Every phrase 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?

For a 7-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and several sibling history tools, the description is too thin. While it correctly avoids explaining return values because an output schema exists, it omits parameter formats, filter behavior, and when to prefer this over adjacent tools.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the granularity options ('per day, ISO week or month'), leaving site_url, start_date, end_date formats, search_type, page_contains, and query_contains undocumented in both schema and description.

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 names the metrics returned (clicks/impressions/CTR/position), the time grouping options, and the local-history source. It is understandable as a trend/performance-over-time tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as history_query or query_search_analytics.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like history_query, history_compare, performance_overview, or query_search_analytics. It also omits prerequisites or conditions for choosing local history over other data sources.

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