serp_rank

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. Description adds value by clarifying it returns real SERP positions (not custom API order) and mentions return fields: rank, URL, and positions. It does not discuss rate limits, error cases, or authentication, but these may be inferred from annotations.

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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences and an example, all front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes meaning, no redundancy. The example is a valuable addition without bloating the text.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers main functionality and output fields (rank, URL, positions). It does not explain output structure in detail or error cases, but for a check tool with good annotations, it is reasonably complete.

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 100%, so the schema documents each parameter adequately. The description provides an example that demonstrates use of 'keyword', 'target', and 'location_name', adding practical context. However, it does not add new semantic information beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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?

Description clearly states the tool checks a domain's rank in Google organic results, using specific verb 'check' and resource 'domain rank'. It distinguishes from custom search by emphasizing 'real SERP position, not Custom Search order'. No sibling tool serves the same specific function, making purpose unambiguous.

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?

Description explicitly says 'Use this to check where a domain ranks', providing clear usage context. It includes an example with typical parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings, though the tool is quite specific and no direct alternative exists.

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