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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/no-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new context: result ordering (clicks descending per GSC default), the connection prerequisite with a remediation link, and how the property resolves when multiple Google accounts are linked. It stops short of describing the returned fields or the effect of rowLimit beyond what the schema says.

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?

Front-loads the definition and the position window before the operational caveats. Four sentences, each carrying distinct information; the multi-account sentence is edge-case but legitimate operational context.

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?

For a read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description should say what columns come back (clicks, impressions, CTR, position). It only mentions sort order. Prerequisites and scope are otherwise well covered, so it is adequate but leaves a notable gap.

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 the baseline is 3. The description gives the position bounds (8–20) semantic meaning as a ranking tier, but adds nothing about searchType, rowLimit, or date format beyond the schema's own text.

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 and resource ("Find queries") and pins down a distinctive filter — average position 8–20 — which functionally separates it from get_gsc_top_queries and get_gsc_low_ctr_queries. It doesn't name those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred from the position window rather than stated.

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 clear preconditions (GSC must be connected, with a URL to fix that) and frames the use case as the "quick win" zone. It never says when NOT to use it or points to an alternative among the many other GSC tools, so the agent must infer the routing.

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