track_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the basic action (add/remove queries) but does not mention any side effects, such as whether removing a query deletes historical data, whether the operation requires specific permissions, or whether it is idempotent. It also does not state what happens on success or failure. For a state-mutating tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 concise, just two sentences, and front-loads the core action (add/remove) before giving the run_tracking context. There is no fluff or repetition. It could be slightly more informative without losing efficiency, but it is well-structured for its length.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must carry a lot of weight. It only explains the general purpose and the relationship to run_tracking, but it does not describe the parameters, expected return values, edge cases, or prerequisites (such as authentication via whoami). An agent would have to guess at the 'region' semantics and the response format, making the description inadequate for confident invocation.

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 only 25% (only the 'remove' parameter has a description). The tool description itself does not explain the meaning of the 'region' parameter, nor does it clarify the difference between the singular 'query' and the plural 'queries' (when to use one over the other). It repeats the general purpose but fails to add value beyond the schema for the three undocumented parameters, so it does not compensate for the low coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Поставить запросы на регулярное отслеживание позиций или снять их' – to put queries on regular position tracking or remove them. It also mentions that tracked queries are used by run_tracking, which helps place the tool in context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_positions or run_tracking beyond the mention, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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?

The description implies usage by stating 'Отслеживаемые запросы использует run_tracking' – tracked queries are used by run_tracking – which suggests you should use this tool to manage the set of queries before running tracking. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives such as get_positions or get_position_history. It gives some context but no exclusions.

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