get_domains_history_positions

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without any details on side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, output format, or whether the operation is read-only. This is a complete lack of transparency.

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 short sentence, which is concise but at the expense of essential information. It does not front-load critical details like required parameters, output format, or behavioral notes. The brevity reduces its utility significantly.

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?

With 39 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, filtering capabilities, or return data. The agent cannot understand how to use the tool effectively based solely on this description.

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?

The description adds no meaning to the 39 parameters. With only 8% schema description coverage (only 3 parameters have descriptions), the description fails to compensate by explaining key parameters like 'mode', 'still_there', or filter ranges. The agent is left to infer from parameter names alone, which are often ambiguous.

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 'Get the history of domain positions' indicates a specific verb and resource, but it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like get_domains_positions (likely current positions) and get_domains_history_pages (history of pages). It does not clarify what 'positions' means (e.g., search engine rankings), making the purpose somewhat vague among many similar tools.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_domains_positions or get_domains_overview. The agent receives no contextual cues about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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