Run a position check

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

Annotations only declare it is a mutating, open-world, non-destructive call; the description adds the genuinely important traits: it consumes tokens, it requires user confirmation before spending, and it is asynchronous so results must be retrieved by polling. Those facts are not derivable from the annotations or the schema and directly change how the agent should sequence the call.

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 short sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the primary action and followed immediately by the cost warning and the polling instruction. Every clause carries operational information.

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 an async, token-spending job the description covers the critical lifecycle: cost check, user confirmation, queueing, and polling via the sibling tool. The remaining gaps are the unmentioned region_id semantics and any indication of what the immediate return value contains, which matters somewhat since no output schema exists.

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 carry the load, and it only partially does: "for a project" hints at project_id, but region_id is never mentioned and its effect on the check (geo targeting of the position check) is left undocumented. No format or default information is supplied for either parameter.

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 and resource ("Queue a Google position check") scoped to a project, which cleanly separates it from read-only siblings like rank_positions and rank_keyword_details. It also names the related tools rank_cost and rank_check_status, so the agent can place the tool in context without opening a schema.

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 explicit prerequisites (call rank_cost and confirm with the user before spending tokens) and an explicit follow-up (poll with rank_check_status), which is exactly the workflow guidance an agent needs. It stops short of saying when this should not be used versus alternatives such as rank_positions, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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