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

Adds a lot of context beyond the annotations: zero cost, the two prerequisites, and the crucial async-trigger behavior (the call may return 'started' and you must poll google_positions shortly after). That async contract is not derivable from readOnlyHint=false or idempotentHint=true, so the description does real work here.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the reason to prefer it, followed by cost, prerequisites, and the follow-up. No filler and nothing redundant with annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description is expected to explain return values, and it only covers the 'started' case, not the shape of a successful positions payload. Everything else an agent needs to call it correctly (prerequisites, cost, async follow-up) is present.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is no schema semantics to add; the baseline of 4 applies. The description sensibly spends no words on parameters and instead documents the zero-input contract implicitly.

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: read last week's positions from the owner's Search Console, performed now rather than on the weekly schedule. This clearly separates it from the scheduled weekly check and from the sibling google_positions tool, which it names as the follow-up step.

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?

Explains when to use it (to avoid waiting for the weekly check), states two hard prerequisites (Google connected, website verified), and routes the agent to google_positions when the response says 'started'. It never says when not to use it, or what to do if the prerequisites are unmet, but the guidance is clear for the common path.

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