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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: default newest-first ordering, the YYYY-MM-DD date format, and that dates default to the whole retention window. It stops short of explaining pagination or result-size 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?

Front-loaded with a one-line summary, then the two kind modes, then defaults for ordering and dates. Sentences are dense and earn their place, with 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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't enumerate return values, and it still sketches them usefully (position, sentiment, context). For a 9-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, it could say more about limit/offset paging, but the required call path (org/project/query/kind plus dates) is covered.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must carry the load and it only partially does: it adds real meaning for kind (mention vs serp) and for the date/sort parameters (format, defaults, ordering). limit, offset, organizationId, projectId and trackedQueryId remain undocumented here and in the schema, leaving the pagination controls opaque.

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 resource (the individual results/results rows behind a tracked query's metrics) and disambiguates its central enum by explaining what kind "mention" and kind "serp" each return. It is clear what the tool produces, though it never names or contrasts a sibling (e.g. get_mention_samples, get_tracked_query_time_series).

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer you call it when you want the rows behind the aggregate metrics, and the kind semantics guide which mode to pick. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance, so selection against siblings is left to inference.

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