Create tracked queries

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that each check spends budget, that skips are reported, and that a confirmationToken gate exists with a defined acquisition path. It also explains the requestId idempotency contract (fresh, reused only on retry), adding real operational context well beyond openWorldHint/idempotentHint=false.

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 paragraph is front-loaded with the core creation semantics before constraints and the confirmation workflow. It is dense and every clause carries information, though the single-block format could benefit from clearer separation of the multi-step workflow.

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 high-complexity mutation with 11 params, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is thorough: it covers creation semantics, budget cost, skip behavior, and the confirmation gate. It does not spell out the return payload (what 'reported' contains), a minor gap given no output schema.

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 only 36%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the key semantic parameters: queryTexts/engines/countries combination logic, checkFrequency scheduling, nPasses pass-count, and confirmationToken. It leaves queryClusterIds and the id parameters undocumented, so coverage is strong but not complete.

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 verb and resource ('Start tracking queries') and precisely defines the combinatorial semantics: 'every combination of queryTexts x engines x countries (at most 100) becomes a tracked query.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_tracked_queries, delete_tracked_queries, and create_clusters.

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 gives an explicit prerequisite workflow: call preview_operation first, show the plan to the user, and call this tool only after explicit agreement. It also names the exact alternative (preview_operation) with the argument needed and explains skip conditions (already-tracked combos, repeats, unsupported Google AI Mode countries).

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