Single tracked-query time series

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: the data-retention date bound, the granularity trade-off, and that engine/country are implicitly fixed by the tracked query rather than exposed as parameters.

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, then prerequisites, then advice and an example. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical granularity list and the example question add slight length without new constraint.

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 7-parameter, read-only time-series tool with no output schema, the description supplies the necessary routing, scoping, and constraint context. Minor gaps remain on date format and the organizationId/projectId semantics that an agent would need for an unambiguous first call.

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 29%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the important parameters: trackedQueryId's source, the granularity enum meaning, competitorIds' purpose (per-competitor lines, though the exact source hint lives in the schema), and the retention bound on dateFrom/dateTo. It leaves date string format and organizationId/projectId unaddressed, so not a full 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Time series of rank-tracking metrics for ONE tracked query across a date window, bucketed by granularity.' The scope word 'ONE' and the enumeration of granularity snapshots distinguish it clearly from the batch-oriented get_rank_tracking_time_series sibling.

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?

Gives explicit routing ('Use search_tracked_queries to find a trackedQueryId'), usage advice ('Prefer weekly or monthly for long windows'), a hard constraint ('Dates must fall within the data retention window'), and a concrete example question, so the agent knows when and how to call it.

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