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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the data scope (tracked keywords, organic/sponsored rank, seller's ASINs) but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as filtering defaults or return shape.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is stated first. The use-case guidance is concise and directly actionable.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with optional filters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could be improved by noting the distinction from get_keyword_rank_history, but the core selection and invocation context is present.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the resource: tracked keywords and organic/sponsored rank for the seller's ASINs. The use cases 'keyword rank' and 'am I ranking for X' make the purpose understandable, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling get_keyword_rank_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 explicitly states 'Use for "keyword rank", "am I ranking for X"', giving clear context for when to invoke this tool. It does not, however, mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools such as get_keyword_rank_history for historical rank data.

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