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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-open-world. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: calling it never consumes lookups, tracking type is detected automatically, and it returns visibility, traffic estimates, and top-N counts. No contradictions with annotations.

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 dense, front-loaded paragraphs with no filler. The first sentence gives the high-level summary, and the second paragraph packs all parameter and behavior guidance efficiently. Every sentence contributes.

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?

Given the moderate complexity, existing output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is complete: it covers scope, supported project types, parameter usage, output contents, and cost behavior. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the parameter-documentation burden. It explains project_id provenance ('a ranking id from list_projects'), that query filters, that sort orders by position/change/volume/traffic, and that limit caps at 50. It doesn't deeply define each sort option's semantics, but all four parameters receive meaningful guidance.

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 first sentence clearly identifies the resource and scope: 'Keyword positions and KPIs for one project' with an explicit list of included KPIs. The per-keyword detail description (position, change, best URL, intent, volume, Keyword Score) makes it easy to distinguish this from sibling tools like get_ranking_alerts or get_ai_visibility.

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 strong when-to-use guidance: project_id comes from list_projects, it works for web/local/YouTube projects with automatic tracking-type detection, and it is free, never consuming lookups. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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