semrush_site_audit_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, idempotent operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that (e.g., what data is returned, time range, pagination behavior). No contradiction with 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?

Description is extremely concise (5 words), but this brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded but too minimal for a tool with three parameters and no schema descriptions.

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 simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description should still clarify pagination or the nature of the history (e.g., crawl dates, statuses). The current description is too vague to allow an agent to confidently invoke the tool without additional context.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions. The description fails to explain any of the three parameters (project_id, limit, offset). The agent must rely solely on parameter names and types, which is insufficient for correct usage.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'site audit crawl history', clearly indicating the tool retrieves a list of past crawl history. Among sibling tools like 'semrush_site_audit_info', 'semrush_site_audit_issues', etc., this focuses on history, distinguishing it adequately.

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 on when to use this tool versus other audit tools (e.g., snapshots, issues, pages). No mention of prerequisites like needing a project ID or typical use cases. The agent is left to infer from the name alone.

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