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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered upstream. The description's list of returned settings partly duplicates the output schema rather than adding behavioral context (no note on auth scope, missing-record behavior, or freshness of last-checked data).

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 tight sentences with zero waste: the payload contents come first, the id-discovery pointer second. Nothing redundant or buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation and the annotations carry the safety story. The remaining gap is that a three-required-parameter lookup with 0% schema coverage leaves the meaning and scoping of organizationId/projectId undocumented.

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% and none of the three required parameters (organizationId, projectId, trackedQueryId) is explained anywhere. The description only indirectly hints that trackedQueryId comes from search_tracked_queries; it does not clarify scoping by organization/project, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (get) and resource (tracked query) and enumerates what the record contains: text, engine, country, status, check frequency, passes, clusters, last-checked. It also names the sibling search_tracked_queries, so an agent can distinguish it from get_tracked_query_matches and get_tracked_query_time_series by the fact that this is a single-record settings fetch.

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 pointer 'Find ids with search_tracked_queries' tells the agent where the required id comes from, which is genuine usage context. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over the closely named get_tracked_query_matches or get_tracked_query_time_series siblings, so the routing is only partially resolved.

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