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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the data source and the return fields, which is useful but does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. Since annotations carry the safety profile, the description adds minimal extra behavioral context.

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 three sentences, each with a purpose: state the action, list the output fields, and give use cases. It is front-loaded with the core function and avoids redundancy or filler. Every sentence earns 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?

Given 8 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields and typical use cases. It does not explain the meaning of metrics like CTR or position, nor explicit date-range handling, but the schema already covers parameter defaults and filters. Overall, an agent receives enough to call the tool correctly.

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 every parameter is already documented. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema—it mentions the return metrics, which are related to the sort_by enum but do not clarify parameter usage. Thus it stays at the baseline of 3 for tools with full schema coverage.

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 specifies the exact action ('Get top search queries'), the resource (search queries for a project), and the data source (Search Console). It also enumerates the returned fields (query text, clicks, impressions, CTR, position). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_top_pages, which operate on pages rather than queries.

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 explicit use cases: 'Use for keyword analysis, content strategy, SEO optimization, finding ranking opportunities.' This provides clear context for when to call the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives like get_top_pages or get_project_analytics, nor does it state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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