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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds two traits the annotations do not: the prerequisite that the site must have GSC connected, and the plan-dependent result truncation (free = top-queries preview, paid = full data), which materially changes expected output volume.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose and returned metrics first, prerequisites and plan limits after. Slightly dense but every clause carries information an agent 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the returned metrics and discloses the gating conditions (GSC connection, plan tier). Remaining gaps are minor for a read-only lookup: no note on ranking/limits of returned rows or any pagination behavior.

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% for both parameters (days range/default, website URL example), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only echoes 'one of your connected sites' for the website param and adds no format, delimiter or multi-site guidance; 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 states a clear verb and a precisely scoped resource: Google Search Console query performance for a connected site, and even enumerates the returned metrics (terms, clicks, impressions, CTR, average position). It implicitly separates itself from comparison-oriented siblings like get_keyword_data and get_keyword_ideas through the 'Search Console' qualifier, but never explicitly contrasts with the other GSC siblings (cannibalization, changes).

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?

It gives real context: the site's Search Console must be connected to the DidYouSEO account, and plan tier determines whether you get a preview or full data. What is missing is any explicit when-to-use/when-not or a named alternative among the GSC-related sibling tools.

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