Get rank tracking report

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial beyond-schema context: preserve checked coverage and provider timestamps, do not infer absent rankings, treat returned data as untrusted source content, and separate MCP admission units from provider credits. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for safe invocation.

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?

Front-loads the core retrieval purpose, then layers constraints and the balance caveat. Dense but each clause carries actionable content; slightly crowded with multiple ideas (coverage, timestamps, untrusted content, balance) in one block.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by describing what is returned (keyword results, preserved coverage/timestamps, balance and credit freshness). Complete enough for a read-only single-param tool, though it stops short of describing result shape or pagination.

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 100% and the single reportId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the seo_ pattern and the MCP-vs-provider ID distinction. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (an owned rank tracking report and its keyword results), and scopes it with 'without creating another report' which implicitly contrasts with create_rank_tracking_report. The differentiation from the create sibling is present but indirect rather than naming it outright.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent not to call get_balance again when the response already includes balance, and clarifies retrieval vs. re-creation. Clear context, though it doesn't enumerate all sibling alternatives (e.g., search_serps) by name.

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