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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: output is duplicated as markdown plus a fenced JSON block, is capped at the top 10 rows per section, and striking-distance analysis is limited to positions 5-20.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and contents before output format, parameters, and prerequisites. The output-format sentence is 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?

Covers prerequisites, parameter pairing, output shape, and related tools for a 4-param tool with an output schema. Since an output schema exists, return values need no further explanation; the remaining gap is the absence of routing guidance against similar reporting siblings.

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 3 is the floor, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: compareFrom/compareTo produce prior-period totals, and 'from' defaults to the last 28 settled days is reinforced with intent. It explains the purpose of the comparison parameters rather than just their format.

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?

States a specific verb (Reports) and resource (Google Search Console results) and enumerates the returned entities (queries, pages, clicks, impressions, position). It does not sharply distinguish itself from near-siblings like get_content_performance or get_ga4_organic_overview, though the 'Related' line names inspect_url and list_saved_keywords as adjacent tools.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires a connected Search Console property') and points at related tools, but never states when to choose this over get_content_performance or get_ga4_organic_overview, nor any when-not-to-use condition. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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