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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description explains how the ranking is computed (stored score from size, years in business, listing completeness), that payment cannot affect position, and that the 'method' field should be quoted. This discloses important behavioral limitations the annotations do not.

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 dense paragraph but every clause adds operational value: what the tool returns, what it ranks, what to quote, and what not to infer. It is slightly long but not wasteful.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the source of the parameter, the ranking logic, the key caveat about payment and quality, and how to pair it with another tool. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The schema already covers the single slug parameter with examples, so the baseline is high. The description adds the connection that the slug comes from list_rankings, which helps the agent source valid values.

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 action and resource: 'Return the published positions in one ranked list'. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying the slug comes from list_rankings and by positioning it against search_studios.

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 explicit guidance: use the slug from list_rankings, pair with search_studios, and avoid answering 'who are the best studios for X' from this tool alone. This clearly differentiates when and how to use it.

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