serp_analytics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the output nature of each view (e.g., 'per-keyword rank, traffic, CTR' and 'rank history over time'), which is meaningful. Yet it omits other behavioral aspects like pagination, sorting defaults, data freshness, or error conditions, leaving gaps in expected behavior.

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 compact and packs a lot of information into a single sentence using a colon-separated structure. Each view clause earns its place, though it could have been made more scannable with bullet points or line breaks. No fluff is present.

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 is complex with 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the four view modes and their dependencies but does not cover return-value structure, pagination behavior, grouping, sorting options, or how search_engine and dates interact. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without guessing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantic meaning of 'view' values and clarifies that global_key vs site_id is required per view. However, it does not address the other nine parameters (limit, order, grouped, sort_by, page_num, granularity, etc.), leaving most of the schema unexplained.

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 defines the tool as SERP analytics with multiple views and enumerates each view's specific output (rank, traffic, CTR, rank history, engine comparison, aggregate metrics). This distinguishes it from the more specialized sibling tools like get_local_rankings or get_mentions by framing it as a multi-view analytics resource.

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 gives concrete usage context by stating which identifier each view requires (global_key vs site_id), which helps the agent choose the right view. However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over sibling analytics tools, nor does it state any exclusions or alternative tool comparisons.

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