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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive) and open-world scope, so the description's job is interpretive context, which it delivers: the two result groups mean opposite remediation work, and the impression-vs-click distinction tells the agent how to act on results. It adds no operational details like rate limits or result ordering, though ordering is documented in 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?

The opening sentence front-loads purpose and scope, and the contrast with find_content_decay follows immediately. Three paragraphs is slightly longer than necessary and the '77% of new pages' statistic is illustrative rather than actionable, but no sentence is pure filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting needn't be described; what matters is how to interpret the two buckets, which the description explains with the diagnostic consequences of each. Combined with full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to select the tool and act on its output.

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 site_url, row_limit and min_age_days are already fully documented, including the impression-based ordering and the pointer to find_new_pages for young pages. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond an implicit reference to 'months' of history, so 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 and resource ('Pages Search Console has shown for months that have never earned a click') plus the defining output split between listing and ranking problems. It also explicitly contrasts with find_content_decay, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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?

Clearly frames the when-to-use case against find_content_decay ('had traffic and lost it' vs 'never had any') and explains the diagnostic split that justifies the call. It does not route against other near-neighbors such as find_quick_wins, which also deals with high-impression/low-click pages, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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