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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description adds key constraints: 'Hard cap 50 rows, max window 28 days' and clarifies it uses 'first-party Search Console data'. These are critical for agent decision-making and are not present in annotations.

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, front-loaded with purpose and parameters, followed by usage and constraints. Every word adds value; no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description clarifies the data source, optional filter, and constraints. Without an output schema, it could detail the returned fields more explicitly, but the purpose is clear enough for correct selection.

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%, and the description does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema. It mentions the optional query_contains filter but does not elaborate on format or behavior. 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns 'Top pages by Google search clicks or impressions' with optional query filtering, and specifies its use case for finding 'pSEO pages' that earn search demand. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fleet_gsc_top_queries.

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?

The description provides a clear use case ('Use to find which pSEO pages earn search demand') and implies it is for page-level data. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes the differentiation evident.

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