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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: dedupe semantics ('already on the list is tracked rather than added again, and one already tracked is left as it is'), a hard plan-quota ceiling ('past it, nothing is added'), the weekly check cadence, and immediate execution 'as the person'. Note the dedupe wording reads subtly idempotent while idempotentHint=false, but it describes returning/leaving state unchanged rather than contradicting the annotation outright.

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 opening sentence is well front-loaded and the quota/dedupe facts earn their place, but the closing line 'A change inside Kooga: it runs at once, as the person' is cryptic and ambiguous about what changed or what guarantee it carries. That opaque sentence dilutes an otherwise tight description.

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?

Covers what an agent needs to call it correctly (query wording, language, workspace, weekly timing, quota ceiling, dedupe), and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The only gap is the unclear final sentence about immediate execution, which leaves the caller unsure what happens synchronously.

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 all three parameters are already documented, including the 'left out, the store's lead language' default and the single-workspace behavior. The description reinforces 'as people type it, in the store's language' but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Track where the store ranks on Google for a search') plus the scope constraint that the query must be worded as people type it, in the store's language. It is clearly distinguishable from researchKeywords (discovery) and readRankings (reading results), both of which it references or implies.

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 the timing model (checked on the rank schedule, about weekly) and points to readRankings as the way to see results after the first check, which is clear 'when and how to follow up' guidance. It does not explicitly state when to prefer researchKeywords over this tool, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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