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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the APIFY_TOKEN requirement, that Apify charges per rank check and per extra page read, that blocked rows are returned free with a row_status, and that failed runs come back as an error carrying the run ID. These are cost, auth, and failure-mode details an agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint/openWorldHint alone.

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?

Information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, and essentially every sentence carries needed detail (depth limit, map pack definition, block handling, cost). The return-field enumeration is a long run-on list and could be broken up for scanability, which keeps it from a 5.

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, 10 parameters, and no annotations covering cost or failure behavior, the description carries the full burden and does: it explains each returned field group, what an empty position means, how blocked rows are surfaced, and how failures are reported.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds little new per-parameter syntax, though it does reinforce the target_domain/business_name either-or choice and clarifies that state_key is what unlocks previous-position deltas.

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 and resource: 'Check where a business ranks on Google for each keyword in each location, with the search placed at that location.' The geo-specific framing distinguishes it from a generic rank checker, and with no siblings there is nothing further to disambiguate.

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?

Tells the agent what inputs are needed ('Give keywords, locations (place names or coordinates), and target_domain and or business_name') and when optional features apply ('with state_key, the previous positions and the change'). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or exclusions, but with no alternatives available the guidance is practically complete.

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