ywm_get_important_urls_history

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only restates the tool's name. No details on what the history includes, pagination, rate limits, or output format are provided, leaving the agent uninformed about behavioral traits.

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 sentence with no waste. It is concise, though it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. It earns a 4 for being front-loaded and 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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return format, how the time range is used, or how this history differs from similar tools. More detail is needed for completeness.

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 100% with each parameter described. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, but since coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool retrieves 'important URLs history over time', using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explain what constitutes 'important URLs', which slightly limits clarity. It is distinct from the sibling 'ywm_get_important_urls' by adding 'history over time'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ywm_get_important_urls or ywm_get_indexing_history. The description lacks any usage context or differentiation from sibling tools.

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