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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: it discloses a one-day cache and the refresh bypass, plus an epistemic caveat that 'not appearing' is a strong signal but not proof of non-indexation. It does not discuss rate limits or data freshness beyond the cache window, so it stops short of the top score.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns, then the interpretation caveat, then the alternative tool, then the cache behavior. Three compact sentences, none wasted, all additive to structured fields.

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 and rich annotations, the description need not explain return shapes. It covers scope, the reliability caveat, the fallback tool, and caching, which is everything an agent needs to call and interpret this 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 the schema already documents both limit and refresh, including that counts and trend cover every page regardless of limit. The description's 'pass refresh to recompute' largely restates the schema's 'Recompute instead of reading cache'; the one-day cache mention adds a little rationale but not new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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: reporting which of the store's pages appear in Google, from Search Console, including counts, the page lists, and the trend. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from inspect_url, so an agent can route between the two without opening either 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?

Names the alternative (inspect_url) and the condition that selects it for the definitive per-page check, and clarifies the meaning of 'not appearing' so the agent knows the signal's strength. Refresh behavior is also explained so the agent knows when recomputation is warranted.

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