get_keyword_rankings

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

The description discloses the return format (JSON array with SERP URLs and search volume) and pagination parameters, adding some behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, nor does it explain the 'change tracking' behavior or any potential limitations in detail.

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 Args, Returns, and Examples sections. It is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every section earns its place, with examples adding practical clarity.

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 description covers the core purpose, all parameters, and return values, and is supported by an output schema. However, it lacks differentiation from similar sibling tools and does not elaborate on the 'change tracking' aspect, which somewhat limits completeness for a tool with no annotations.

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?

The description provides clear explanations for all three parameters, including the required campaign_id and the pagination semantics for offset and limit. Since the schema has zero description coverage, this compensation is essential and well executed, though the 'default' values simply repeat schema information.

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 keyword rankings for a campaign, listing specific data types (Google, Google Mobile, Google Places, Bing) and change tracking. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool get_campaign_rankings, which may serve a similar purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_keywords or get_campaign_rankings. There are no explicit use cases, preconditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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