webmaster_get_external_links_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a meaningful behavioral constraint ('at most 31 days'), which is useful beyond the annotations, but it does not explain what happens if the range exceeds 31 days or describe any return/pagination behavior.

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 wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though the extreme terseness leaves important details unstated rather than being a structural flaw.

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 three required parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not explain host_id or date formats. The output schema likely covers return values and annotations cover safety, but the input-side context is materially incomplete.

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% for all three required parameters, and the description only implies that date_from/date_to must span at most 31 days. It adds no meaning for host_id or date format, leaving the parameters largely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 clear verb+resource ('Read external link history') and adds a temporal scope ('at most 31 days'). It distinguishes from the likely sibling webmaster_list_external_links by the 'history' aspect, though it does not explicitly call out the alternative.

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_external_links or webmaster_get_broken_links_history. The 31-day limit hints at a constrained use case, but the description provides no explicit context or exclusions.

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