List Rank Radars

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: pagination metadata, a hard cap of 50 items per page, the need for multiple calls on large accounts, and the fact that archived Rank Radars are only returned when explicitly requested. These disclosures help the agent set expectations without contradicting the annotation.

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 front-loaded with the most important use case, then explains the resource, returned fields, and pagination behavior without fluff. Every sentence earns its place, and no information is duplicated from the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned item fields and pagination metadata. It gives the agent enough detail to know what results to expect and how to page through a large account, making the tool safe to select and call.

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 input schema already documents all five parameters with full coverage, so the description does not need to repeat parameter meanings. It does add usage-oriented hints like filtering by nicheId and the 50-item page cap, but these map onto existing schema fields rather than introducing new parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it 'Retrieves a paginated list of Rank Radars' and is explicitly positioned as the way to 'find a rankRadarId before calling get_rank_radar_data'. It also enumerates the returned fields, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_rank_radar or pause_rank_radar.

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 gives clear usage context: call this before get_rank_radar_data, and filter by nicheId when the user has already identified a niche. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or compare it against alternatives like create/pause/delete, so it falls just short of fully explicit when/when-not guidance.

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