local_rank_tracker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While the operations ('places', 'search', etc.) imply read-only behavior, the description does not explicitly state side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or return format. This is a significant gap for a tool that may access external search engines.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a structured list of operations. Each operation entry is concise and includes required parameters. The list format improves scannability, though it could be slightly more compact by grouping shared parameter patterns.

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 multiple operations with multiple parameters and no output schema. The description lists operations and required params but does not explain return values, pagination behavior, or coordinate format. For a complex tool, this leaves gaps, though the operation list provides a solid foundation.

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?

The schema only defines 'operation' and 'args' with open-ended properties, but the description names the required parameters for each operation (e.g., 'query', 'lat', 'lng', 'grid_size', 'radius'). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema, making the tool usable without additional documentation.

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 with a specific verb+resource: 'Track a business's local search ranking across a geographic grid of coordinates (local SEO rank grid).' It also enumerates the operations, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like local_business_data and yelp_business_data that focus on business data rather than ranking tracking.

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 instructions on how to use the tool by listing operations and their required parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative sibling tools, leaving the decision to the agent.

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