Search tracked queries

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond them: pagination via limit/offset, the 1-100 bound with a default of 20, and the fact that results carry latest rank positions and metrics.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action before filters, sort options, and pagination limits. Dense but every sentence carries information; the long sortBy enumeration is slightly list-heavy.

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 10-parameter read with no output schema and thin schema descriptions, the description supplies the missing filter/sort/pagination semantics and tells the agent what the results contain. Only minor gaps remain (offset semantics, sort default direction).

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 20%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it enumerates the sortable fields matching sortBy's enum, states the limit range and default, and names the filter axes (status, engines, countries, free-text search). It still doesn't clarify offset behavior or org/project ID roles, hence not 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Search and paginate the tracked queries (keywords) of a project') and its scope, plus what data accompanies each result (latest rank positions and metrics). An agent can distinguish it from get_tracked_query (single fetch) or create_tracked_queries without opening schemas.

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 clear context: filter by status/engines/countries/free-text, sort by a named set, and example intents like 'list my top queries by share of voice'. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g. use get_tracked_query for a single query), 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.