webmaster_get_external_links_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that the operation is a read and that history is capped at 31 days. However, it leaves important behavior unspecified, such as what happens when the requested date range exceeds 31 days, whether the limit is truncation or an error, and whether pagination applies.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. The most important operational constraint, 'at most 31 days', is front-loaded and directly useful to an agent.

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 description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. It lacks guidance on date format, host_id provenance, how to handle ranges beyond 31 days, and the relationship to sibling history/list tools. The output schema helps with return values, but parameter behavior and selection context remain under-specified.

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 adds some meaning to date_from and date_to by indicating that the range is limited to 31 days, but it says nothing about host_id, date formats, or how the date range relates to the limit.

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 precise resource ('external link history') with an explicit boundary ('at most 31 days'). The resource term 'external link history' clearly distinguishes this from siblings like webmaster_list_external_links and webmaster_get_broken_links_history.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that current external links are covered by webmaster_list_external_links or that broken-link history belongs to webmaster_get_broken_links_history. The word 'history' weakly implies the use case, but no explicit context or exclusion is provided.

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