check_rank

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and covers key behavior: input normalization ('scheme/www/path ignored'), the exact return shape including 'position', 'url', 'results', and 'quota', and failure behavior via an 'error' field. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, but 'check' plus the described output strongly implies it.

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 tightly structured: a one-sentence summary, an Args block covering each parameter with examples, and a return-shape paragraph. No sentence is redundant, and the most important scoping facts are front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description fully specifies what the tool returns, including the null position case and failure dict. It also states the scope ('top-10 organic results') and quota reporting, so an agent can invoke and interpret the result correctly without additional context.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain each parameter, and it does: domain is exemplified and normalized, keyword is defined as the search query, and country is given with ISO format, a default, and market-dependence rationale. All three parameters are meaningfully documented.

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 opening sentence, 'Check where a domain ranks on Google for a keyword,' uses a specific verb, resource, and search context. It clearly distinguishes the tool's function even without sibling tools to differentiate from.

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 gives actionable usage context: 'Rankings differ by country, so pass the market the user cares about,' which tells the agent how to set the country parameter based on user intent. It does not mention alternatives, but no siblings exist, so exclusion guidance is not needed.

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