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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond this – no defaults for the date range, limit, or which optional parameters materially change behavior, which matters for a 17-parameter retrieval tool.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. But for a tool with 17 inputs and no schema documentation, this level of brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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?

The output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but the description is far too thin for a 0%-covered 17-parameter tool. An agent has no way to know which of the many optional parameters to supply or how they interact.

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 description coverage is 0% across 17 parameters, so the schema provides only titles and defaults and the description must compensate – yet it mentions no parameter at all, not even the url, days, limit, or date_from/date_to fields that drive the query.

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 resource (top Search Console queries) scoped to 'this account', so an agent can tell it returns ranked query data. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings such as search_get_metrics or search_get_paid_organic, which likely also surface Search Console data.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus the other search_* siblings, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. 'For this account' is a scope statement, not usage guidance.

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