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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real operational context: results are sorted by clicks descending per the GSC API default, a GSC connection is mandatory, and when multiple Google accounts exist the property resolves through whichever account can see it — non-obvious multi-tenant behavior.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before prerequisites and the account-resolution caveat. The final account sentence is slightly tangential but earns its place by preempting a real ambiguity.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description discloses the return ordering (clicks descending) and the connection requirement, which is most of what an agent needs. Minor gaps remain on pagination/rowLimit behavior, though the schema supplies defaults.

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% with documented defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting (baseline 3). The description adds interpretive meaning by framing minPosition/maxPosition as the 8-20 'quick win' band, clarifying the intent of those numeric bounds beyond their raw default 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 (find) and resource (queries), and precisely defines the target segment — average positions 8-20, the 'quick win' zone. This distinguishes it from sibling query tools like get_gsc_top_queries or get_gsc_low_ctr_queries without needing to open their schemas.

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?

Explains the condition that makes the tool useful (queries in the 8-20 band where small gains yield clicks) and states the prerequisite that GSC must be connected, with a link to connect it. It does not name sibling alternatives for other query analyses, so it falls short of explicit when-not guidance.

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