Get rank check result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is established. The description adds little beyond 'get one result by id' — it doesn't address pagination, result size, latency, or whether the result includes rank positions, dates, or competitor data. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds minimal behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste. Fully front-loaded with the purpose stated in the first four words. Nothing extraneous.

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?

This is a simple single-resource retrieval with good annotations and 100% schema coverage, so completeness is largely achieved through structured data. However, there is no output schema and the description doesn't mention what a rank check result contains (rank, date, keyword, URL, position history), which the agent may need to interpret the return value. Adequate but not rich.

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 100% — both check_id and project_id have pattern validation and descriptions in the schema. The description repeats 'check id' without adding semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., that project_id must belong to a valid project, or whether check_id must be from the same project). Baseline 3 is correct when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get one rank check result by check id' states the verb (get), resource (rank check result), and identifies the primary identifier (check id). It's clear and specific, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like run_rank_check, get_rank_history, or export_rank_history, which are related rank-check operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like run_rank_check, get_rank_history, and export_rank_history, an agent could benefit from knowing that this retrieves a single result by ID while get_rank_history covers historical data and run_rank_check triggers new checks. No exclusions or context are given.

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