get-important-url-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 idempotency profile is covered. The description adds only scoping semantics (one URL vs. a list), not behavioral detail such as pagination, retention window, or how the history is sampled. Adequate but no value beyond the annotations.

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, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded before the two disambiguation clauses. Every sentence carries routing information.

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?

Purpose and routing are fully covered, and no output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, with 4 parameters at 50% description coverage, the undocumented date_from/date_to range semantics leave the agent guessing about how to narrow or bound the history query.

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 50%: url and host_id are described, but date_from and date_to carry no description in the schema. The description never mentions the date-range narrowing capability at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on half the parameters.

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 history for a specific important URL') and immediately scopes it to a single URL. It explicitly names the two siblings it is not (get-important-urls, get-search-events-samples), so an agent can disambiguate without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit positive trigger ('when the user asks how one important URL changed over time') plus two named exclusions with the correct alternative tool for each. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative structure that removes routing ambiguity.

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