get-broken-internal-links-history

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine interpretation context beyond that: a row should not be treated as a live failure until source_last_access_date is read. It does not, however, disclose the return shape (time-series points) or date-range semantics, so it stops short of full 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the trigger, then the exclusion and caveat. No filler and no repetition of the tool name or title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only source of return-value information; it implies a count-over-time series but never states what a row contains beyond the borrowed source_last_access_date caveat. Selection and invocation are fully covered, making this near-complete for a simple read tool, with only the return shape and date-parameter semantics missing.

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 only 33% (host_id is labeled 'Host ID', which is tautological), and date_from/date_to have no documented format, timezone, or default in either the schema or the description. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not mention the parameters at all.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get broken internal links count history') and immediately differentiates scope from the sibling get-broken-internal-links by contrasting 'count history' with 'source and destination URLs'. An agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('when the user asks how the broken-internal-link count changed over time') and an explicit when-not-to-use with the named alternative ('Do not use it for the source and destination URLs; call get-broken-internal-links'). This is textbook routing guidance.

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