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

With empty annotations the description carries full behavioral burden, and it delivers the key trait an agent needs: data lags about two days and the default range is 28 days ending three days ago. It does not cover auth requirements or rate limits, but the freshness/lag disclosure is substantive context beyond the schema.

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 with zero filler, front-loaded with the verb/resource and metrics, then the operational caveat (lag and default range). Every clause earns its place.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned metrics, the data-lag behavior, and default range. Combined with the fully documented schema, an agent has what it needs, though pagination/filter behavior is only covered by the schema.

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%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters in detail. The description restates the metrics and grouping dimensions but adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 (Query) and resource (Google Search Console Search Analytics performance) plus the exact metrics returned (clicks, impressions, CTR, average position). It names the grouping dimensions and distinguishes itself from sibling gsc_sites by referencing it as the site source.

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 ties the required 'site' parameter to gsc_sites, giving some routing context, and implies the tool is for performance reporting. However, it never explicitly contrasts with gsc_inspect_url or states when not to use it, leaving the when-to-use decision largely inferred.

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