algorithm_updates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the non-obvious matching rule ('An update matches if it overlaps the range') and the ISO date format, but says nothing about read-only nature, ordering, pagination limits, or what happens when no dates are supplied.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with what the tool is, then format, then matching semantics, then the use case. No filler sentences and no repetition of schema or title content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a two-optional-parameter read tool the description covers format and overlap semantics adequately; only the behavior when one or both dates are omitted is left unstated.

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 0% for two unlabeled date parameters, so the description must compensate. It does add the ISO (YYYY-MM-DD) format and the overlap matching semantics, which genuinely clarifies how date_from/date_to are interpreted, but it never maps each parameter to its role or states that both are optional/defaulted to null.

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?

States a specific resource ('Google Search ranking/spam updates from the Search Status Dashboard'), which unambiguously separates it from the doc-oriented siblings (get_doc, search_docs, corpus_status). It is clear what the tool returns, though it never explicitly frames the verb ('fetch/list') in the first line.

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?

'Use this to correlate traffic drops with known Google updates' gives a concrete use case and implicitly the context that selects this tool over the documentation siblings. There is no statement of when *not* to use it or of an alternative, so it stops short of a top score.

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