Biggest tracked-query movers

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: 'Dates must fall within the data retention window', the per-row structure (one tracked query = single engine + country), and the sign convention (positive = improved), none of which is in the 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?

The core function is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence (row semantics, sort keys, retention constraint, example questions) earns its place. It is slightly dense but not padded or repetitive.

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 describes the return rows (current position/share/sentiment plus signed trend delta) and the retention constraint. For a 10-param tool it is largely complete, though it says nothing about the enum values for sortBy or the engines/countries filters beyond what the schema already carries.

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 40%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the crucial params: it defines the dateFrom/dateTo window relationship (current vs immediately preceding equal-length window) and the sort semantics ('sortOrder desc = top gainers, asc = top losers'). Pagination (limit/offset) and the ID params are left to the schema, keeping it from a 5.

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 precise verb+resource+scope: 'Ranks a project's tracked queries by how much a metric changed between the given window and the immediately preceding window.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling time-series tools (get_tracked_query_time_series, get_rank_tracking_time_series), which track one query over time rather than ranking movers across queries.

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 concrete usage context via example questions ('which queries moved the most', 'my biggest gains and drops versus last period'), making the intended scenario obvious. It does not, however, name alternative tools or state explicit exclusions (e.g. when to prefer a time-series tool over this one), so it stops short of a 5.

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