Check tracked queries now

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

Annotations only reveal the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true); the description goes well beyond by disclosing the budget cost ('one per pass'), the confirmationToken precondition and its provenance, and the asynchronous result timing ('over the next minutes'). These are the operational traits an agent must know before invoking.

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 purpose, then selection, constraint, cost, prerequisite workflow, and result retrieval — a logical order with no filler sentences. It is dense at five sentences, but each carries distinct actionable information, and the long confirmation paragraph is warranted by the user-consent requirement.

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 an async, budget-spending, confirmation-gated trigger with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what gets run, what it costs, the prerequisite preview/user-consent loop, and where results eventually land. Nothing material is missing.

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%, so the description carries the burden and it largely does: trackedQueryIds is bounded ('up to 100'), all: true is explained as covering every active tracked query, and confirmationToken's required source is documented. organizationId, projectId, and especially requestId receive no explanation, leaving one parameter fully opaque.

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 ('Check tracked queries now instead of waiting for their schedule') with explicit scope: either up to 100 named queries or all active ones. An agent can distinguish this immediate-trigger action from scheduled ranking activity without opening the 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?

Spells out the two mutually alternative selection modes (trackedQueryIds vs all: true), the precise workflow required before calling (preview_operation with the same tool name and arguments, show the plan, wait for explicit user agreement), and where to read results afterward. The exclusions are named too — a query whose check is still running is skipped.

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