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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: 'top 25 at most,' slug/name acceptance, a conditional published/unpublished failure shape, the exact entry fields, provenance details, methodology link, and explicit statements that paid placement never affects rank and Ranked products are never ranked.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and packed with operationally relevant details, including response structure, constraints, and integrity guarantees. It is somewhat long and includes rhetorical flourishes like 'the one fact nobody else has,' but for a tool with no output schema, the density is mostly justified.

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 carries the full burden of explaining response shape, and it does so thoroughly: per-entry fields, per-answer fields, failure behavior, URL pattern, data provenance, and methodology link. It leaves little ambiguity about what an agent will receive or what constraints apply.

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 descriptions already cover category and city with examples; the description reinforces slug-or-name acceptance and adds that results come 'straight from the production database' and are capped at 25, which clarifies limit's practical effect. It does not add significant meaning to the limit parameter beyond the schema's min/max/default, but it complements the schema well.

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 names a specific resource — Ranked's ordered list for a category in a Nigerian city — with a clear verb ('ranking'), and the category-plus-city scoping makes the tool's job unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like ranked_place or ranked_stats, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 usage when a category-and-city ranking is needed and adds the important precondition that it is served only when the base page is published. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings, nor does it name alternatives or exclusions.

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