get_position_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that the tool returns history and competitiveness dynamics; it does not explain output format, time range, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation, which is a meaningful gap.

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 compact sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It opens with the core resource ('История позиций домена') and adds the secondary component ('динамика конкурентности') efficiently.

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 tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description omits too much operational context. An agent would not know how to set the region, what the returned history looks like, or how this differs behaviorally from close siblings like get_positions.

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%, so the description must clarify the parameters, but it only loosely references 'domain' and 'one query'. The required 'query' parameter is not explicitly explained, and the 'region' parameter is entirely absent from the 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 identifies the tool's subject: a domain's position history for a single query, plus competitiveness dynamics for that query. It is specific enough to distinguish the core concept from current-position tools like get_positions, though it does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast them.

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 such as get_positions, track_query, or geo_history. It implies a single-query historical scope but does not state that implication or provide any exclusion criteria.

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