check_rank

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

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the possible outcome states (ranked with rank and apps above, absent with top results, not_in_store), which tells the agent what to expect back. It does not cover latency, rate limits, or the live-fetch cost implied by readOnlyHint=false, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Two sentences: the capability is front-loaded, followed by a compact state taxonomy. No filler, and the state list is the highest-value information for interpreting results.

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 4-parameter, 2-required read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope and result states adequately. It leaves the platform parameter behavior (that it is inferred from the app link) and any error/auth conditions to the schema and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents cc, app, term, and platform (with enum). The description reinforces that one storefront and one term apply per call but adds no syntax beyond the schema, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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+resource+scope: the live rank of one app for a search term in one storefront, as shown right now. It also draws the boundary against tracked-keyword siblings by noting the term need not be tracked, so an agent can separate it from hive_keyword_ranks/get_keywords without opening schemas.

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 term does not need to be tracked" gives clear context for when this tool applies versus the tracked-keyword tools, and the 'live / right now' framing signals an on-demand fetch. However, no sibling is named explicitly and no when-not-to-use case is stated.

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