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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot: with Search Console connected the searches are real observed data, without it stages are inferred from URL/title and the response discloses this. It does not cover pagination or rate limits, but the data-provenance disclosure is substantial.

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?

Two sentences, the first tightly enumerating the three output dimensions and the second front-loading the important data-source caveat. Dense but every clause carries information; only the long-running first sentence slightly taxes readability.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so: it enumerates the leak types (no page, no searches, self-competing pages) and the funnel-stage mapping. Combined with annotations for safety, an agent has what it needs to call it correctly.

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 100%, so both site_id and detail (concise vs detailed, top-25 trimming) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and scope: keyword journeys per site mapping pages to funnel stages (tofu/mofu/bofu), the searches that reach them, and funnel leaks. It is clearly more specific than a generic 'get' tool, though it never names the closely related sibling get_keyword_funnel to disambiguate.

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 context is implied by the GSC-connection note (use it to see journeys when Search Console data exists; otherwise results are inferred), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to an alternative like get_keyword_funnel or get_gsc_queries.

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