get_domain_rank

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds that it returns a percentile and that it's owner-gate exempt (public cohort data), providing behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary information; every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, but the description explains the return value as a percentile string. With 5 parameters all described, and annotations covering safety, the description is fairly complete. It could add more detail on the exact percentile format, but it's sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning: it explains that the score comes from scan_domain, country selects the cohort, sector is forwarded with future planned filtering, and format auto-detects. This adds helpful context beyond the schema.

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 purpose: 'Rank a domain against its country or global cohort using the GSI benchmark corpus.' The verb 'rank' and resource 'domain' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like scan_domain (which produces the score) and other check tools.

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?

It specifies that the tool accepts a domain score from scan_domain and optional country/sector, implying it should be used after scan_domain. It also mentions 'Owner-gate exempt — public cohort data only,' providing context on when it can be used. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the guidance is clear.

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