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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the description's job is to add context. It does by identifying the data source (Search Console) and the exact return fields (clicks, impressions, CTR percent, average position). It omits ordering/pagination behavior, which is only partially implied by the schema's limit.

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, zero waste, with the resource and returned metrics front-loaded before the filter options. Nothing is redundant with the title or 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of naming the returned fields, and it covers the main filtering scenarios. Minor gaps remain on result ordering and the default lookback window, though the latter is supplied in the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including the max_ctr impression floor and the 3-day data lag. The description only restates the filter intents in plain language, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is 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 and resource ('the Google searches the site shows up for, from its Search Console') and enumerates the returned metrics. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like find_keyword_opportunities or compare_serp because it is about raw Search Console query rows.

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?

Gives concrete usage contexts for the filters: one page, queries containing words, or queries seen but rarely clicked. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use this one, so it falls short of a 5.

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