Get rank tracking report

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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behaviorholol, but the description adds meaningful behavioral disclosures beyond that: preserving checked coverage and provider timestamps, not inferring absent rankings, and treating returned content as untrusted data (not instructions). No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences pack purpose, constraints, and a security caveat with no redundancy. Front-loaded verb and object make the tool's role immediately clear.

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?

For a read-only retrieval with one well-documented parameter)Skip, the description covers purpose, non-creation, data expectations, and a security note. Return structure is not detailed, but the absence of an output schema makes the concise 'keyword results' mention acceptable — though a bit more response detail would improve completeness.

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 reportId parameter already has a detailed description clarifying it is the MCP reportId from the create tool, not a provider ID. The tool description adds minimal parameter-level value beyond 'owned', so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific action ('Retrieve') on a specific resource ('an owned rank tracking report and its keyword results') and explicitly contrasts with report creation, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishable from sibling create_* tools.

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?

It clearly indicates that the tool retrieves an existing report rather than creating one, effectively excluding the create_rank_tracking_report sibling. It doesn't explicitly enumerate all alternative get_* report tools, but the resource type ('rank tracking report') provides adequate selection context.

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