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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context by disclosing the returned metric set and the conditional behavior of page_contains (it switches to showing top queries for a single page). It does not mention default row limits, default date range, or what happens when multiple sites are enabled — all of which affect the result.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the primary output is front-loaded and the optional mode follows. Nothing in the description is redundant with the title or schema.

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 13 optional parameters and no output schema, the description does the minimum useful work by enumerating the returned metrics. However, it omits default behavior that materially changes results (default detail level, default date range, whether all sites are queried when site is omitted), leaving the agent to infer from schema descriptions alone.

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 77%, so most parameters are already documented, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description does add genuine meaning for page_contains, clarifying that it triggers a queries-of-one-page view rather than just a URL filter, which goes beyond the schema's 'Only pages whose URL contains this text.' The other 12 parameters — limit, detail, date_range, device, country, search_type — receive no elaboration in the description.

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 names the specific resource (pages), the ranking metric (organic clicks), and the returned measures (impressions, CTR, position), so the agent knows exactly what this produces. It also flags the page_contains drill-down mode. It stops short of naming gsc_queries or gsc_performance as the contrasting sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 only implied: 'ranked by organic clicks' signals page-level performance analysis, and the page_contains note hints at a drill-down use case. There is no explicit statement of when to pick this over gsc_queries, gsc_performance, or gsc_breakdown, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond what the schema says about the site parameter.

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