Run Position Check

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It does not disclose whether the check is synchronous or asynchronous, what side effects occur, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a 'run' action, critical behavioral context is missing.

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?

Description is one sentence, very concise but lacks structure. Opening 'Project Tool:' is redundant given tool name and wastes prime real estate. Could front-load the core action more effectively.

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 no output schema and no annotations, description should provide more context. It does not explain return values, whether a job ID is returned, or success/failure indicators. For an action tool, completeness is inadequate.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds value by clarifying the two modes (keywords vs. entire project) and requiring a project ID, but it does not explain the relationship between site_engine_id and keywords (schema notes that keywords overrides site_engine_id). Score at baseline 3 with marginal addition.

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?

Description clearly states the tool runs a ranking position check for specified keywords or entire project. The verb 'Run' and resource 'ranking position check' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like PROJECT_getCompetitorPositions (which retrieves positions) and PROJECT_setKeywordPosition (manual set) by implying an action, though not explicitly differentiating.

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?

Description mentions requirement of a project ID and notes two modes (specific keywords or entire project). However, it does not provide when to use this tool versus alternatives like PROJECT_getCompetitorPositions or PROJECT_setKeywordPosition, nor does it give exclusion criteria.

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