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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by explaining that 'new' means first impression rather than publication and that never-shown pages are invisible to the tool. These are genuine behavioral caveats beyond the annotations, though nothing is said about data freshness limits beyond the archived-date note carried 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good, but the long block of statistics (77%, 90%, 22x, 37,295 pages) is persuasive padding that restates the same point three times. The definitional paragraph at the end is more valuable than the benchmark recital and could have come earlier.

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-shape explanation is not needed, and the description covers what the tool does, the meaning of its core concept, and its main limitation. What remains thin is guidance on choosing this over adjacent analysis tools, which matters given a sibling list this large.

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 parameters are already documented, including that row_limit orders by impressions. The description's statistical argument adds rationale for the seven-day default but no syntax, units, or edge-case behavior beyond the schema, so this sits at the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource pair: pages Search Console started showing in the last N days, plus whether they earned a click. The follow-up paragraph precisely narrows the definition of 'new' to first-impression date, which separates it cleanly from siblings like find_dead_pages or find_content_decay.

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?

Gives strong guidance on the default window (why seven days) and explicitly states the tool's blind spot: pages Google has never shown cannot appear. It does not name alternatives such as find_quick_wins or compare_periods, so routing between similar analysis tools is left implicit.

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