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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context by specifying the default sorting order (clicks descending) and the semantic meaning of the position range (page 1 bottom / page 2). This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is three sentences, each earning its place: the core purpose, the sorting behavior, and the prerequisite. It's front-loaded with the key information and contains no redundant text.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and rich annotations/schema, the description covers the essential behavior: purpose, sorting, and prerequisite. It doesn't detail the return fields, but no output schema exists, and the description gives enough to select and invoke the tool 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?

The schema has 100% parameter coverage, including defaults for minPosition and maxPosition. The description adds meaning by explaining why these positions matter ('quick win zone'), which helps the agent understand the tool's purpose beyond the raw parameter names.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: finding queries ranking in positions 8–20, framing it as a 'quick win' opportunity. This specific position range distinguishes it from other GSC query tools like get_gsc_top_queries or get_gsc_low_ctr_queries, which target different metrics.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: to identify quick-win SEO opportunities where small improvements can increase clicks. It also states a prerequisite (GSC must be connected) and directs the user to the integration page. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it.

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