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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: 'not_connected means no search data source is connected, which is not zero' — a meaningful distinction for interpreting results. It omits pagination/cursor behavior, so it is not fully complete.

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 dense sentences with no filler, and the core purpose leads before the parameter detail. The packed, run-on clauses for range values slightly hinder scanning but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a 12-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains range and dimension but is silent on pagination (cursor), result sizing (limit/sort), and the compare options and their paired date fields. The not_connected note is a highlight, but an agent still lacks enough to use several parameters 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 0% across 12 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies the range default, the custom cross-field prerequisite, and the dimension breakdown values, but leaves sort, limit, cursor, compare, granularity, and the compare_* date fields unexplained. It adds value beyond the schema without compensating for the full coverage gap.

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+resource: it returns Search Console and GA4 totals for a range, with optional comparison. That is concrete and far better than a restatement of the title. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbors like read_search_dataset or read_visibility_overview, so an agent still has to infer which read tool applies.

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?

Usage is implied through parameter guidance: it explains valid range values, the default (last_synced), that custom requires start_date and end_date, and that dimension produces a breakdown. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternative tool is named for overlapping data.

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