get-indexing-history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds usage context but says nothing about return shape, pagination, or granularity of the time series. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 tight sentences, purpose first, then the positive usage trigger, then the two exclusions. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 history/read tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose and routing well. It falls short only on the date-parameter semantics, which an agent would need to call it correctly.

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 has a (tautological) description while date_from and date_to are undocumented. The description says 'over time' but never specifies date formats, ranges, or how host_id scopes the result, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get indexing history over time') and clarifies the measured quantity ('the number of indexed pages'). It explicitly names the two siblings it is not (get-indexing-samples, get-insearch-history), 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('how the number of indexed pages changed over time') plus two when-not-to-use clauses, each routed to a named alternative with the distinguishing condition. This is textbook sibling routing.

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