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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful operational context about workspace scoping and the analyze/crawl modes, but does not disclose runtime behaviors such as pagination or limits; no contradiction with annotations.

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 efficient sentences with no wasted words. The action and outputs are front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and scoping context, each earning its place.

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 two-parameter tool with a rich input schema, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, how it is scoped, and how to invoke it directly.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the analyze/crawl distinction and clarifies that no domain/site parameter is needed, which helps slightly, but it does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Analyze') and names the concrete deliverables: on-page SEO score, critical issues, raw crawl metadata, and page inventory. It clearly positions the tool for page-level diagnosis and even names the alternative for search performance, so an agent can distinguish it 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?

Explicitly provides the intended use case ('page-level diagnosis') and points to gsc_performance for search-performance questions. It also tells the agent the tool is already scoped to the connected workspace, so no domain or site parameter is needed.

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