Historique d'un site

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavior: default chronological ordering and automatic exclusion of Google crawls (700-01-003) unless explicitly filtered. It does not describe pagination or output shape, but with annotations covering safety, this is adequate.

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 concise sentences plus the endpoint; no filler, front-loaded with purpose and critical filter behavior.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description leaves out essential call semantics: date-range parameters, pagination defaults, meaning of family/category filters, and response structure. It conveys only the core purpose and one exclusion rule.

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?

Only 18% of parameters have schema descriptions, so the description carries a heavy burden. It only clarifies that `code` can filter specific event codes (e.g., 700-01-003) and implicitly identifies `siteId` through the endpoint. The many filter/pagination parameters (`from`, `to`, `family`, `page_id`, `page_url`, `category_id`, `cpt_id`, `page`, `limit`) remain unexplained in both schema and 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 states the tool returns a site's history events, sorted from most recent to oldest, and gives the endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like addSiteHistorique (write) and getSite (current site).

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?

It implies this is the endpoint to consult a site's history, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer getHistoriqueCodes or listPages). The only usage nuance is the Google-crawl exclusion.

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