geo_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add value by stating 'Ничего не тратит' (spends nothing) and using 'История' to imply a read-only historical view. It does not cover data freshness or limits, but the cost-free/read-only behavior is meaningfully disclosed.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose and output are front-loaded, and the cost note is compact and useful.

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 description is adequate for a simple historical query tool: it states the purpose, the filter dimensions, the key metrics, and the no-cost behavior. However, without annotations or an output schema, it leaves provider semantics and filter combination ambiguous, and it does not say when to choose this over related geo 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 coverage is 75%, covering limit, query, and domain; provider is left as an enum without explanation. The description adds that domain or query can act as filters and describes the result contents, but it does not clarify how provider interacts with the other filters or whether they combine.

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 identifies the resource: history of visibility checks in AI answers, scoped by domain or query. It also lists the returned metrics (citation count, share, frequent competitors), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_position_history and geo_check_visibility.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of related geo tools. The phrase 'по домену или запросу' only describes filtering, and 'Ничего не тратит' implies safe usage but does not route the agent between alternatives.

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