webmaster_get_broken_links_history

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It does add the 31-day retention limit, which is useful behavioral information, but it says nothing about pagination, sorting, or data freshness.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The time constraint is stated immediately and the sentence is easy to parse.

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?

Although an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is insufficient for a tool with three required, undocumented parameters. It lacks parameter guidance and any usage context relative to sibling tools, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 0% and there are three required parameters (host_id, date_from, date_to). The description only implies that dates span at most 31 days; it does not explain the expected format for dates or the meaning of host_id, leaving the schema entirely undocumented.

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 clear verb ('Read') and resource ('broken internal link history'), with a scope limit of 31 days. It is distinct from the sibling webmaster_list_broken_links by implying historical data, though it does not explicitly contrast the two.

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 only guidance is the 31-day maximum. There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus webmaster_list_broken_links or other history tools, nor are prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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