Get Keyword Rankings for a Rank Radar

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the return format ('Returns an array of tracked keywords; each has id, keyword, searchVolume, ranks (per-day { date, organicRank, impressionRank }), and any highlight annotations') and date format requirements. This adds meaningful context about what the operation does and what the user should expect, without exceeding annotation coverage.

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 well-structured and concise. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, parameter requirements, operational behavior, return structure, and usage sequencing. There is no redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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?

The description is complete given the tool's complexity. It covers what the tool does, the required parameters and their format, the return structure, and how to obtain the necessary ID. With readOnlyHint annotation and no output schema, this description provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by restating the date format and the need to obtain rankRadarId from list_rank_radars, but this information is already present in the schema. Therefore, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Retrieves historical keyword ranking data for the specified Rank Radar within the date range.' The verb 'retrieves' is specific, and the resource ('keyword ranking data' for a Rank Radar) is well-defined. It also distinguishes from siblings like list_rank_radars and create_rank_radar by focusing on data retrieval rather than management.

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 usage context by stating 'Use after list_rank_radars to discover a rankRadarId,' which establishes a prerequisite and workflow. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternative approaches, so it falls short of a 5.

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