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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: metrics are copied verbatim from Search Console, ctr is a 0-1 fraction rather than a percent, and omitting dates triggers a 28-day default window.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the metric semantics, then the default-window rule. No filler and every sentence carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be explained. However, with 7 parameters and zero schema descriptions, several filter parameters (device, country, searchType, limit) are left undocumented by both the schema and the description, leaving gaps for an agent building a call.

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 7 parameters, so the description carries the burden and only partially compensates. It clarifies date defaults and the ctr unit, but says nothing about siteUrl format, limit bounds, device, country, or searchType values.

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+resource: 'Top search queries for one property and date range,' which is clearly distinct from the sibling top_pages. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

The description gives one conditional behavior ('Omit dates to use the default 28-day window'), which is useful, but offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over top_pages, compare_periods, or quick_wins. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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