Keyword positions

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

The description does add one behavioral trait beyond the annotations: 'This operation may consume SEO Intellect account limits,' which is important given readOnlyHint=false. However, it does not disclose the asynchronous task behavior implied by task_id, wait_for_result, timeout_ms, and poll_interval_ms in the schema, so transparency is incomplete.

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 short and front-loaded with the main capability. The second sentence, 'Upstream API tool: positions,' is essentially redundant with the tool name and does little work, but the overall description is compact.

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?

This is a complex tool with two request variants in the schema and no output schema, yet the description does not explain the create-vs-poll flow or what the response looks like. An agent would need to infer the task_id polling workflow solely from parameter names, which is a meaningful gap.

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 reported at 100%, so the schema carries the parameter documentation and the baseline is 3. The description only generically refers to 'optional Wordstat/SERP signals,' which adds no concrete meaning beyond the schema's ws_* parameter names.

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 opens with a concrete verb and object: 'Check a site's positions,' and adds that Wordstat/SERP signals are optional, so an agent understands the core function. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling positions_multi or keywords_checker, which keeps it just shy of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to prefer positions over the many sibling keyword/position tools, and no exclusion criteria. The phrase 'optional Wordstat/SERP signals' implies a use case, but the description gives no guidance about positions_multi or polling variants.

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