get-insearch-history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered structurally. The description adds only the implicit notion of a time series ('over time'); it says nothing about granularity, aggregation, pagination, or whether a date range is required.

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, purpose first, then positive usage, then the two exclusions. No filler and no repetition of structured data.

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, and the two date parameters are undocumented everywhere, so an agent knows when to call this tool but not how to bound the range or what shape the returned series takes. Purpose and routing are complete; operational detail is not.

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 documented as 'Host ID' while date_from and date_to have no descriptions at all. The description's phrase 'over time' hints that dates matter but supplies no format, defaults, inclusive/exclusive bounds, or required-range semantics, so it fails to compensate for the schema 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 in-search history') and immediately disambiguates the jargon with a parenthetical gloss ('appearing in results'). It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from two similar-sounding siblings by name, so an agent can select it without opening schemas.

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 a concrete triggering condition ('when the user asks how many pages were present in search results over time') plus two explicit exclusions that each route to the correct alternative (get-insearch-samples for example URLs, get-indexing-history for the indexed-page series). This is a textbook when/when-not/alternative block.

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