get-query-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 handled. The description adds useful scope context (aggregate site-level time series rather than per-query detail), but it says nothing about date-range defaults, auth requirements, or result granularity/limits 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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the core capability plus the routing rule are front-loaded. Every clause 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?

There is no output schema, so the description's mention of shows, clicks, and average position does useful work in describing what comes back, and the sibling routing is complete. However, with only 25% parameter documentation and no notes on date handling or defaults, the definition is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for a 4-parameter time-series tool.

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 25%: host_id carries a trivial 'Host ID' label and date_from, date_to, and the device_type enum are undocumented. The description does not compensate for this gap — it explains no date format, no default range, and no meaning for the device_type enum values, so an agent must guess at three of four 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 search query totals history') and immediately clarifies the scope is site-wide aggregate metrics over time. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get-popular-queries, so an agent can separate the two 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the user asks how shows, clicks, or average position moved over time for the site as a whole') and an explicit exclusion with a named alternative ('Do not use it for the ranking of individual queries; call get-popular-queries'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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