List Rank Radars

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: pagination behavior, field list, and summary metrics, plus the note that this is a list operation. It does not describe every detail (e.g., default status behavior is in the schema), but it goes beyond the annotation.

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: a purpose sentence, a filter hint, a definition of the resource, the returned fields, and pagination metadata. Every sentence carries unique information, and the key purpose is front-loaded. No filler 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?

For a list tool with no output schema, the description documents the response shape sufficiently: item fields and pagination metadata. It also defines what a Rank Radar is. Missing minor details like default status or sorting, but those live in the schema and are easily inferable. Overall complete enough.

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 parameters are fully documented. The description repeats nicheId and mentions pagination but does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema. 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 opens with a clear use case ('find a rankRadarId before calling get_rank_radar_data') and explicitly states the resource ('Rank Radars'). It lists what the tool retrieves and the item fields, making it unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like get_rank_radar_data or create_rank_radar.

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?

Provides concrete guidance on when to use the tool (before get_rank_radar_data) and conditional filtering based on whether a niche is already identified. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sequencing and filter hints give clear context for selection.

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