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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing what is returned, including the raw results list, tracked-domain markers, result counts, repeat link, position history, and check cost, but it does not cover error cases or rate limits.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded, and every listed item is relevant to the evidence being returned. The main sentence is long and list-heavy, but the second sentence immediately clarifies the diagnostic use case.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so by enumerating the key evidence components. It is complete enough for correct invocation, with minor gaps only around output formatting and pagination details.

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%, and the schema already explains rows, checkId, and clientId in detail. The description adds only the notion of "one ranking" and "that check," so it does not add meaningful parameter semantics 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: it returns the evidence behind one ranking check. It enumerates the concrete contents and diagnostic questions, so an agent can distinguish it from get_rankings, which supplies the checkId rather than the evidence.

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?

It clearly indicates when to use it: to answer questions like "why does it say position 9?" or "why was it not found?" It also references get_rankings and list_clients as sources for the required ids, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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