Project rank-tracking overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the retention-window restriction on dates and the fact that this is an aggregated, project-scoped rollup. It does not mention result size or pagination behavior.

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-loaded with the core purpose and scoping, followed by the routing hint and constraints. The metric enumeration is long but each item is a genuine output category, not filler. Reads as tight prose with no redundant sentences.

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 usefully compensates by naming the returned aggregates, which is a strength. However, for an 8-parameter tool at 38% schema coverage, the parameter semantics gap remains unaddressed, leaving the definition only partially complete.

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 low (38%) and the description adds almost no per-parameter meaning beyond the generic 'date window'. It never clarifies organizationId, projectId, queryClusterIds, includeUngroupedQueries, or countries, and the low-coverage schema leaves those under-documented. The metric list implies engines but does not explain the engines param.

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 and enumerates the exact aggregates returned (average positions, trends, share of voice, sentiment split, rates, buckets). It explicitly positions itself against siblings ('the project overview; prefer it before the per-cluster or time-series tools'), so an agent can distinguish it from get_cluster_breakdown and get_rank_tracking_time_series without opening a schema.

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 routing instruction ('prefer it before the per-cluster or time-series tools') gives clear positive guidance and names the alternatives. It also adds the constraint that dates must fall within the data retention window. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or fallback for out-of-window ranges, so it stops short of 5.

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