Site metrics history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the analytical output (trend classification) and temporal scope (monthly history), but does not mention data availability, units, or limitations. This is minimal but not misleading.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the key purpose and trend insight. No redundant words or filler content.

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?

The tool has only two parameters and no output schema, so the description should explain what the user receives. It mentions the high-level trend result but does not describe the actual returned data (e.g., monthly values, units). This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 only 50% (months lacks a description). The description does not explain the parameters or add meaning beyond the schema. It fails to compensate for the undocumented 'months' parameter, leaving ambiguity about its role.

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 tool shows monthly organic traffic history for a domain, and explicitly mentions the trend classification (growing, flat, or declining). This distinguishes it from siblings like site-metrics (current metrics) and keyword-volume-history (keyword-focused).

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 implies usage for analyzing historical organic traffic trends over months. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls just short of a 5.

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