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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that dimensions can include specific values, which is useful operational context, but it omits behavior such as pagination, row_limit effects, data freshness, and auth requirements.

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 description is two tight sentences with no redundant or filler content. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the supplemental dimension information follows immediately.

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 read-only query tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key domain context: the performance metrics returned and the allowable dimensions. It remains slightly incomplete because it does not explain result structure, pagination, or row_limit semantics, though the input schema covers some of that via defaults and bounds.

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 60%, so the schema already documents site_url and date fields. The description adds meaningful context by listing allowed dimension values ('query', 'page', 'country', 'device', 'date'), which are not enumerated in the schema, and by naming the returned metrics. It does not clarify row_limit behavior or date syntax beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('Search Console performance data') and lists the metrics returned. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like gsc_add_site and gsc_list_sitemaps, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with any alternative tool.

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 implied by the purpose: use this when you need Search Console performance data. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion criteria, and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites such as requiring a verified site.

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