Get a tracked query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's enumeration of returned fields adds value, but says nothing about scoping requirements or behavior when the id is unknown/unauthorized.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and the field list appended compactly. The trailing 'Find ids with search_tracked_queries' is useful rather than filler. Minor run-on list of fields, but nothing wasteful.

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 simple read-only fetch with no output schema, listing the returned fields is a genuine substitute for a return-value spec. However, the zero-coverage parameters and absence of scoping/error context leave the agent with gaps it must guess at.

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 0% and the three required parameters (organizationId, projectId, trackedQueryId) are bare strings. The description only implicitly references trackedQueryId via the reference to search_tracked_queries and never explains the org/project scoping requirement, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('One tracked query's settings') and enumerates what the record contains (text, engine, country, status, check frequency, clusters, last check). It partially distinguishes itself by noting ids come from search_tracked_queries, though it doesn't contrast with get_tracked_query_matches or get_tracked_query_time_series.

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 how to obtain the required id ('Find ids with search_tracked_queries'), which is the key prerequisite for calling this tool. It gives no explicit when-not guidance or mention of the time-series/matches siblings, 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.