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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: exact cost, response envelope structure, the fact that rejected requests still return HTTP 200, and pagination with offset_token. These are behavioral traits not present in annotations and are crucial for correct usage.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: purpose, cost, alternatives, envelope, and use case are clearly front-loaded. Slightly verbose but well-structured.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the key operational aspects (cost, response envelope, error behavior, pagination) and routes to alternatives, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

Though schema coverage is 0% at the top-level, the nested schema descriptions are detailed. The description adds value by explaining pagination tokens and the limit/offset semantics. It doesn't cover all parameters, but the schema does, so the balance is good.

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: finds which pages of a target site earn its rankings, ranked by traffic. It distinguishes from siblings by pointing to alternative tools for keywords and backlinks, and by contrasting with the more expensive google_ads endpoints.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (to find pages worth defending/expanding) and when not, naming two alternative tools. Also compares cost and data granularity with google_ads endpoints, giving clear selection criteria.

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