Run rank check

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

Annotations give readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial transparency beyond that: it warns about provider cost, explains the synchronous default behavior, describes the async alternative contract, and notes the approval-flow dependency on the client. It doesn't detail what happens on failure or quota exhaustion, but the key cost/approval behavior is well disclosed.

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 three sentences and efficiently front-loads the core purpose before diving into caveats. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, cost/approval warning, and async behavior. Slightly dense single paragraph could benefit from separating the async guidance, but overall it's tight and well-ordered.

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?

For a tool with 5 params, no output schema, and mutation semantics (readOnlyHint=false), this description is fairly complete. It covers the cost implication, approval requirement, sync/async contract, and references the polling tool. Gaps remain around idempotency_key semantics and the output/return format, but the important operational details are well covered.

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 60% — three params (async, idempotency_key, project_id base) lack descriptions. The description adds meaning for async (explains sync/async distinction and polling behavior), which goes beyond the schema. idempotency_key and project_id aren't described, but the async semantic explanation meaningfully compensates. Not a 5 since idempotency semantics in particular remain undocumented.

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 clearly states it 'Run a provider-backed rank check for one keyword', specifying the verb (run), resource (rank check), and scope (one keyword/provider-backed). It distinguishes from siblings like get_rank_check_result (polling) and get_rank_history (historical data). However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, which keeps it from a 5.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Requires write access and may incur provider cost. Ask for explicit user approval immediately before calling' — a clear prerequisite and safety note. It also explicitly explains when to set async versus sync ('Set async to true to enqueue... poll it with get_rank_check_result'), naming the follow-up tool for the async path.

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