get_landing_matches

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the return statuses (match/mismatch/none), but does not state whether the operation is read-only, how errors are handled, how date ranges affect results, pagination behavior, or other important runtime characteristics.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and the expected output. It is appropriately concise for the tool's apparent simplicity.

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 tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides only a high-level purpose. It lacks parameter explanations, return format details, pagination behavior, defaults, and any edge-case handling, making it inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without further information.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanations for any of the 9 parameters, including required ones like site_id, search_engine, from_date, and to_date. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation, leaving parameter meaning completely ambiguous.

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: checking whether ranking pages match preferred landing pages, and explicitly lists the three possible statuses (match/mismatch/none). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_landings_history, which focuses on historical data rather than match status.

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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose without explicit instruction.

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