get_campaign_rankings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format, data granularity, and search engines covered, and provides examples. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only or mention authentication/rate limits, but the verb 'get' and narrative imply no side effects.

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 well-structured with a clear summary, Args, Returns, and Examples sections. It is appropriately sized with no filler or redundant content, and every section adds value.

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 simple read-only retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, return structure, and examples. It lacks explicit time-range behavior, but the schema does not include a time-range parameter, so this is complete for the defined interface.

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 must compensate. The Args section thoroughly explains campaign_id as required, offset as pagination with default 0, and limit as max results with default 50, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. Examples further illustrate parameter usage.

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 that the tool retrieves historical ranking trends for a campaign, specifying key details like average positions, distribution buckets, and search engines. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_keyword_rankings by focusing on aggregate campaign-level data.

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 for campaign-level historical rankings but never explicitly mentions alternatives like get_keyword_rankings or states when not to use this tool. The context is clear but excludes no alternatives, so guidance is only implied.

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