get-external-links-history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and purity profile is fully covered. The description adds the key behavioral nuance that this is a count-over-time (trend) tool rather than a listing tool, but says nothing about time-series return shape, default date window, or granularity.

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, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the disambiguation clauses following. Every sentence earns its place.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the routing information is complete, but the two undocumented date parameters and the nature of the returned history (points, granularity, units) are left entirely unaddressed.

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 coverage is only 33% — host_id is documented but date_from and date_to are bare strings. The description never mentions the date range parameters, their format, whether they are inclusive, or what happens when omitted, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get external links count history') and immediately contrasts it with two sibling tools (get-external-links for the URLs, get-broken-internal-links-history for internal broken links). An agent can distinguish it from every neighbor without opening a 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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('when the user asks whether the number of external links rose or fell') plus two explicit exclusions naming the alternative tools for each. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives pattern.

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