Create a Rank Radar

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds critical behavioral details: it 'Spends Search Term tokens' with cost scaling by `numberOfKeywords`, 'cannot be undone', requires `confirm: true` after user approval, and returns a `rankRadarId`. This goes well beyond the annotations and fully discloses the side effects and prerequisites.

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, each earning its place: purpose, cost/warning, and return/requirements. The use of ⚠️ draws attention to the destructive aspect, and the structure is front-loaded with purpose before details. No wasted words.

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 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and annotations present, the description adequately covers the return value (`rankRadarId`), prerequisites, cost, and confirmation flow. It could mention potential errors or how tracking progresses over time, but for a create action with this complexity, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by linking `numberOfKeywords` to token cost scaling, noting `nicheId` comes from `list_niches`, and emphasizing `confirm: true` after cost approval. These enrich the schema's basic descriptions, providing extra context for decision-making.

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 the tool's function: 'start tracking organic and sponsored keyword rankings for an ASIN within a niche.' It uses a specific verb ('start tracking') and identifies the resource (keyword rankings for an ASIN/niche), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like `get_rank_radar_data` (read later) and `create_niche_dive` (different kind of creation).

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 clear context on when to use: when you need to begin keyword tracking for an ASIN in a niche. It also warns about token costs, requires user approval via `confirm`, and points to `get_rank_radar_data` for reading data later, which serves as a related alternative. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with sibling creation tools like `create_niche_dive`, so it falls slightly short of full guidance.

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