get-search-events-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 covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing that this tool returns COUNTS (aggregate) rather than the underlying URLs or exclusion reasons, which is the key behavioral distinction from its siblings. It stops short of describing time granularity, formatting, or pagination.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the verb+resource, followed by usage and then the exclusion. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully conveys the return semantics (appeared/removed counts over time) and routes alternatives, so an agent can call it correctly in principle. The remaining gap is the undocumented date_from/date_to format and semantics, which is the only thing an agent lacks for a correct invocation.

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 documented, date_from/date_to undocumented) and the description does not compensate: it never explains the date range parameters, their format, or their behavior. 'Over time' only weakly implies that date parameters apply, adding almost no semantic meaning beyond what the bare schema already provides.

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 URL events history') and immediately qualifies the scope with '(appeared/removed)' and 'the count of appeared and removed search URLs over time.' An agent can distinguish this aggregate-history tool from get-search-events-samples (which returns the URLs themselves) 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('Use when the user wants the count of appeared and removed search URLs over time') plus an explicit exclusion and routing ('Do not use it for the URLs themselves or the exclusion reason; call get-search-events-samples or get-excluded-pages'). Names the alternative siblings and the condition that selects them.

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