webmaster_get_sqi_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes one genuine behavioral fact (the 366-day default/maximum window) but omits auth/verification requirements and any note about how the window affects results.

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 tight sentence with the resource and its key constraint front-loaded; no filler or repetition.

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 presence of an output schema removes the burden of describing return values, but with 0% schema description coverage the description should have compensated for the undocumented parameters (especially date format). It covers the period constraint but leaves the parameter surface 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, yet it never explains host_id, date_from, or date_to, nor the expected date format. The period mention touches the date range only implicitly, leaving all three parameters effectively 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 specific verb (Read) and resource (site quality index / SQI/ИКС history), which is clearly distinguishable from the many sibling *_history tools by resource. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 implies usage (fetch SQI history for a host) and adds a useful constraint about the default/max period, but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives among the numerous sibling history tools. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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