google_updates_statusRiporta gli ultimi update di ranking confermati ufficialmente da Google e indica se ce n'è uno in rollout in questo momento. Dati dal monitor live di Sequel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | No | Lingua della risposta (default it) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context about the data source ('Dati dal monitor live di Sequel') and the nature of the response (confirmed updates and current rollout). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 tightly worded sentences in Italian: the first states the core functionality, the second cites the data source. No redundant information or repetition of schema details.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains what the output covers (latest confirmed updates and current rollout status). The data source and language default (via schema) complete the context.
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 only parameter 'language' has full schema coverage with description ('Lingua della risposta (default it)'). The tool description does not add extra semantic detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool 'riporta gli ultimi update di ranking confermati ufficialmente da Google e indica se ce n'è uno in rollout' — a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like quick_site_check and search_insights.
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 implies a clear use case: checking official Google ranking updates and current rollout status. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but sibling tools are clearly different domains, so context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinctly different purpose: one checks Google update status, one performs a quick site readiness check, one requests a quote, and one searches content. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Naming conventions are mixed: google_updates_status and quick_site_check are noun phrases, while request_quote and search_insights follow a verb_noun pattern. The set lacks a consistent naming style.
Four tools is an appropriate number for a focused toolkit covering status monitoring, site checks, lead generation, and content discovery. Each tool serves a clear purpose without unnecessary bloat.
The toolkit covers the core functions: monitoring Google updates, checking site readiness, generating leads, and searching knowledge. A minor gap is the absence of a full site audit tool, though quick_site_check references the full report externally.