get_domain_rank

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by clarifying that the tool is owner-gate exempt and uses public cohort data only. It also honestly notes that sector filtering is planned for a future release. This surpasses annotation coverage but does not delve into other behavioral aspects like rate limits or error handling.

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, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: what it does, what it accepts, what it returns, and access constraints. No unnecessary words.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return value ('returns a percentile: scores better than X% of peers'). The tool has 5 parameters, all described in schema, and the description covers usage context with scan_domain. It is complete for a ranking tool with clear annotations.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context such as 'from scan_domain' for the score parameter and notes that sector filtering is planned, but these are minor enhancements. The schema already describes each parameter adequately.

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 uses specific verbs ('rank', 'accepts', 'returns') and identifies the resource ('domain against its country or global cohort using the GSI benchmark corpus'). It distinguishes from siblings by highlighting the ranking function, which is unique among the listed 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?

The description clearly states that the tool accepts a domain score from scan_domain, implying a post-scan use case. It mentions owner-gate exemption for public data. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like compare_domains, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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