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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the data comes from an imported copy created at merchant sync time, and the tool 'fails with instructions' when Search Console isn't connected. It doesn't cover freshness/staleness or pagination, but the failure path is valuable disclosure.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the data source, then the two branches, then the failure case. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the description covers both modes, the data origin, and the failure condition. Nothing operationally relevant to invoking this 3-parameter tool is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully interprets productId's presence vs absence (product-level ranking queries vs store-wide mismatch opportunities) and clarifies the ordering (highest impressions first). It does not explain the feedId title-override behavior, keeping it below 5.

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 ('Lifetime Google Search Console query data for product pages') and clearly delineates its two operating modes. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like optimize_next or list_products without opening the schema.

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 explicit conditions for each mode: supply productId to get the queries a product ranks for, or omit it for store-wide title/query mismatch opportunities. It also states what happens on failure (Search Console not connected/synced). It stops short of naming sibling alternatives or exclusions, so not a full 5.

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