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

Annotations already declare it as a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent operation. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: it is a paid operation at roughly $0.0006 per tracked keyword with a stated provider and depth. It omits whether the refresh is async or how long it takes, so it stops short of a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and schedule scope, followed by cost and routing. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers action, cost, and target selection. It leaves the execution model (async vs. blocking) unspecified, a modest gap for an on-demand job trigger.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the choice between trackerId and siteId, adding minor routing meaning but no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Starts an on-demand rank refresh for tracked keywords') plus the distinguishing scope ('outside the weekly schedule'), which separates it from the read-only get_rankings sibling. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Explains when to use it (on-demand refresh vs. the weekly schedule) and how to select the target via trackerId from get_rankings or siteId. No explicit when-not to use or exclusions, but the routing guidance is clear.

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