ranked_keywords

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two genuinely valuable traits: the cost ('0.05 USDC on Base via x402') and the fact that it is a snapshot with no automatic monitoring. It omits permission/auth requirements, rate limits, and any error or failure behavior, which is a meaningful gap for a paid, un-annotated tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the returned payload and followed by the usage constraint and cost. Every clause carries distinct information with no padding or redundancy.

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 reasonably explains the returned fields, and it supplies the cost/one-shot constraints. However, for a 5-parameter paid tool it leaves the limit parameter undocumented and never clarifies its relationship to near-identical siblings, leaving the agent with residual ambiguity.

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 coverage is only 40% across 5 parameters. The description adds meaning for target/location/language ('one domain and selected location/language'), but says nothing about the limit parameter (default 50, max 100) or confirmNewPurchase, whose semantics live only in the schema. Partial compensation, so baseline 3.

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/resource pair ('Domain ranking snapshot') and enumerates the payload (keywords, positions, ranking URLs, search volume) scoped to one domain with location/language. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely-named sibling keywords_for_site or keyword_metrics, so an agent must guess which ranking tool is appropriate.

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 line 'Save the JSON for a later, separately requested comparison; no automatic monitoring' tells the agent this is a one-shot snapshot rather than a monitoring subscription, which is useful context. But it gives no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance against keywords_for_site, keyword_metrics, or domain_rank, leaving the sibling choice to inference.

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