get_local_rankings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention return format, pagination, auth requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. 'Per-location rank history' is a minimal behavioral hint but far from sufficient.

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 short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks essential details and does not effectively front-load useful information beyond a vague mention of local rankings.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is critically incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how to use its parameters, or any operational behaviors, making it inadequate for reliable invocation.

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 does not compensate by explaining any of the 8 parameters. No light is shed on date formats, granularity options, or the meaning of site_id or search_engine, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone.

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 'Local search rankings with per-location rank history' indicates the resource and a distinctive feature, but it lacks a clear verb and does not differentiate from siblings like serp_analytics. It is more a noun phrase than a statement of action, though the 'per-location rank history' adds some specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent without information to make a selection decision.

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