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

Annotations already cover the read-only safety profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: analytics fields appear only "where connected," and responses follow the account language (German by default). It stops short of describing response size, pagination, or what happens if the path is unknown.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that establishes the resource first, then enumerates contents and finally the language caveat. Dense but every clause carries information; no 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing what the report contains and noting the language of the response, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. Minor gaps remain around failure behavior for unknown paths and data freshness, but the call can be made correctly from this.

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% — the path parameter carries an example and domainId points to list_domains — so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the notion that path identifies a single page, which is baseline credit for a fully documented two-parameter 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?

"A full report for a single page of the domain" gives a specific verb+resource and enumerates the report's sections (search performance, analytics behavior, classification, top queries). It clearly delimits scope to one page, though it never names the closest sibling (search_console_pages) so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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 only implied: "for a single page" suggests using this when per-page detail is needed rather than list-level data. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no mention of search_console_pages or search_console_queries as alternatives, so routing between similar siblings is left to inference.

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