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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: Search Console omits rare queries so totals here come out lower, a 366-day ceiling, and that a non-org or unverified domain yields 'not found' rather than an error or empty result. Return shape and ordering (most clicked first) are only partly covered, keeping it below 5.

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 what-it-returns sentence leads, followed by caveats and error behavior — good front-loading with no filler. The closing 'It changes nothing' is clipped to the point of ambiguity (presumably idempotent/read-only, already covered by annotations), a small wasted line in an otherwise dense four-sentence block.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned metrics and the ranking order. The main omission for a 5-parameter analytics tool is how an agent obtains a valid domain or page value — no pointer to webops_list_websites or webops_pages, even though 'page' must be copied exactly from the latter.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add two things the schema does not: a 366-day cap on the from/to window, and that 'domain' must be an organization-connected site. However, 'domain' has no schema description at all and the description only implies its constraint rather than spelling out the accepted format, so the compensation is partial.

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+resource pair — the Google searches a connected website appeared for — and enumerates the returned metrics (clicks, impressions, CTR, average position). It also states the two scopes (whole site vs. one page), which separates it from webops_daily and webops_pages without opening their schemas.

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?

It gives clear preconditions (the domain must be one of the organization's connected, verified sites), a hard range cap (at most 366 days), and the not-found outcome for unverified/unconnected sites. What it does not do is name a sibling as the alternative — e.g. webops_list_websites to discover domains or webops_pages to obtain the exact page URL the 'page' parameter requires.

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