webmaster_indexing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a GET (read-only) query and that the return is a time series of indexed page counts, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, or default behavior when dates are omitted.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core resource (page-count dynamics in Yandex search) before the endpoint and the growth/decline framing. No wasted words. It is dense but readable, with only a minor parenthetical endpoint that could be considered redundant.

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 read-only tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains what data comes back, so return values need not be clarified. The notable gap is that both parameters are optional yet the description never says what date range is used by default when they are omitted, which matters for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both date parameters with their YYYY-MM-DD format and optionality. The description's 'по датам' merely aligns with the date parameters and adds no format, default-range, or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: page-count dynamics over time in Yandex search, sourced from the search-urls history endpoint, and even quotes the GET path. The agent understands this is a historical indexing-trend tool distinctly different from webmaster_queries or webmaster_sitemaps. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to contrast against, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied through the resource semantics (tracking indexing growth/decline by date). There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over webmaster_summary or webmaster_queries, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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