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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and non-idempotent, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds material context the annotations cannot express: the credit cost model (one credit per map point), the fact that credits are charged only after approval, and that the call returns an approval link rather than running anything immediately. It does not cover what happens on rejection or link expiry.

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, no filler, with the approval/payment gate front-loaded before the return value. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the right thing by naming the return value (an approval link) and the cost semantics. But for a 5-parameter, paid, destructive-tagged operation it leaves the grid dimensions — the main driver of both cost and scan shape — undocumented, which is a real gap.

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 only 20% — just spacing_km. The description explains the keyword and the business-centring (profile_id), but grid_rows and grid_cols, which directly determine the credit cost, are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description. With low coverage the description needed to compensate and does not.

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?

A specific verb (request/ask the user to approve) applied to a specific resource (a paid Rank Tracker scan), scoped to a keyword centred on the business. The parenthetical pointing at preview_rank_scan signals the distinction from that sibling, though it is framed as a cost reference rather than a purpose contrast.

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 the trigger (the user wants a paid scan for a keyword) and points to preview_rank_scan for cost. But it never says when not to use this tool, nor directs the agent to list_rank_scans/get_rank_scan to retrieve results after approval, or to get_credit_balances before committing.

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