Get a tracked query's matches

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description usefully spends its budget on behavior instead: default sort order (newest first), date format (YYYY-MM-DD), and the default retention-window span for dates. That is genuine added context beyond the structured fields, though pagination/return-shape behavior is unaddressed.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the kind breakdown and date defaults. No filler; slightly dense but every clause carries information.

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 9-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers the non-obvious semantics (kind, dates, default ordering). The main gap is pagination guidance around limit/offset, which the agent must infer from the schema alone.

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 0% and there are 9 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It compensates well for the ambiguous ones — the enum values of `kind` are explained concretely, and the date format plus defaults for dateFrom/dateTo are given. It says nothing about limit, offset, or the ID parameters, but those are self-evident.

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 resource (individual results behind one tracked query's metrics) and disambiguates the two result kinds — mentions in AI answers vs domain rankings in SERPs. This clearly separates it from aggregate siblings like get_tracked_query_time_series, though it never names those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied — drill down into the raw events behind a query's metrics — but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance relative to alternatives such as get_mention_samples, get_cited_sources, or list_ai_responses. The agent must infer the routing.

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