webmaster_get_broken_links_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key constraint—the 31-day limit—and indicates a read operation. However, it does not clarify what happens when the requested range exceeds 31 days (truncation vs. error), nor mention authentication or rate-limit considerations.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, and every word contributes meaning.

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, the description is too sparse to make the tool fully invokable without guessing. It lacks parameter explanations, usage context, and edge-case behavior for the 31-day limit. For a tool with three required parameters and zero schema descriptions, this leaves significant gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implies the date range concept via '31 days', but does not explain host_id, date_from, or date_to formats or semantics. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the bare parameter names.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('broken internal link history'), plus a scope constraint ('at most 31 days'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like webmaster_list_broken_links (likely current broken links) and webmaster_get_external_links_history (external link history), though it does not explicitly name these alternatives.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as webmaster_list_broken_links or other history tools. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling context, with no explicit conditions or exclusions.

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