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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely new traits: the ~3-day reporting lag (data freshness) and the prerequisite that the merchant has connected Google. No error-path or fallback behavior is described, keeping it at a 4.

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, no filler, with the resource identity and panel list front-loaded and the prerequisite/lag caveats trailing. The first sentence is dense with inline parentheticals but every clause carries information the caller needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained; the description covers resource scope, the three modes, data freshness, and the auth prerequisite. The only omission is what happens if Google is not connected (error vs empty result), a minor gap.

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 days, limit, and panel including the fallback-to-28 rule and the ignored-for-overview note. The description largely restates the panel meanings the schema already carries, so 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 — Google Search Console performance for the connected property — and enumerates the three panels with what each contains, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near siblings like get_seo_summary or get_page_seo, so it falls short of a 5.

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 clear operating context: which panel returns which view, that data lags ~3 days, and that the merchant must have connected Google in the app. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not to use it (e.g. vs get_seo_summary), so no explicit exclusions.

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