webmaster_get_search_events_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered by structured data. The description adds the 31-day window constraint, which is meaningful behavioral context, but omits whether counts are aggregated, paged, or host-scoped in 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 14-word sentence, front-loaded with the action and the hard 31-day limit. No filler.

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?

Three required parameters at 0% schema coverage are fully undocumented, and no usage or sibling differentiation is provided. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the input contract and selection guidance are 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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it never mentions host_id, date_from, or date_to. An agent learns nothing about the date format, range semantics, or host scoping beyond what the bare type strings reveal.

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 specific verb 'Read' and resource 'page counts' of APPEARED_IN_SEARCH / REMOVED_FROM_SEARCH events, which is reasonably specific. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling webmaster_list_search_events or webmaster_get_search_urls_history, leaving ambiguity about when this history tool is the right pick.

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 31-day cap is a useful constraint, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus webmaster_list_search_events or other history siblings. An agent has to infer the distinction from the name alone.

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