get_history

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds meaningful data semantics: series points are [day, rank] and a null rank means the app was absent from top results, which is explicitly not the same as a bad rank. The Pro plan gating requirement is also disclosed.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the two highest-value details (point format and null semantics). No filler.

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 explains the return shape and null semantics, and notes the plan requirement. The main remaining gap is the time window / granularity of the history, which is not stated and cannot be inferred from the two parameters.

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 100%, so both appId and country are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description's 'for one country' reinforces that country scopes a single series rather than a comparison, but adds no format or default behavior beyond the schema.

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+resource+scope: keyword rank history for one country. It is distinguishable from point-in-time siblings like check_rank and from metric tools like get_keyword_metrics, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied (you want historical rank over time rather than a current rank or aggregate metric), and the 'Pro plan' note gives a real prerequisite. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus check_rank/get_charts/hive_keyword_ranks guidance or any exclusion.

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