get_indexing_history

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns a time series of indexed and excluded counts, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, data granularity, or how the trend is presented.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core concept and use case. It contains no filler or redundant wording, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool is a read-only history query with well-documented parameters and a clear output concept (trend of indexed/excluded counts). The schema covers parameter semantics, but the absence of an output schema means the exact return structure is unspecified, leaving a small gap.

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?

All four parameters (host_id, format, date_from, date_to) have clear descriptions in the schema, including defaults and formats. The description itself adds no extra parameter-level information, so the baseline score of 3 applies given the 100% schema coverage.

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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as providing an indexed/excluded page-count trend over time, with the explicit use case of detecting deindexing. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_indexing, which likely shows current status, and other analytics tools.

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?

The description implies a usage context ('detect deindexing') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. There is no mention of prerequisites or comparing with get_indexing or get_query_analytics.

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