get_keyword_ranks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool is a read operation and explicitly declares it is a stub for introspection only. This is a critical behavioral trait that prevents misuse.

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?

Two sentences, no extraneous words. First sentence packs the purpose, second sentence provides essential context about the stub nature. Highly efficient.

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?

With full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides enough context for a stub tool: it indicates what data is conceptually returned and that it's not operational. Lacks output format details, but acceptable for an introspection stub.

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%, and the description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a read/ranking endpoint for keyword rank positions, changes, and SQP volume views. It uses specific verbs and resource names, and the sibling tools list shows many get_* tools, making this unique and distinguishable.

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 states that this is a hosted endpoint and a local stdio stub, implying it should not be used for actual data retrieval. However, it does not provide explicit guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_keyword_performance or get_current_rank.

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