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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context beyond the annotations: the Google Search Console connection requirement, the integrations URL to fix it, and the multi-account property-resolution rule. Rate limits and pagination behavior remain unstated.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the prerequisites. The integration-URL sentence is slightly operational-admin in tone but earns its place by telling the agent exactly how to remediate a missing connection.

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 GSC query tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and account-selection behavior. The main remaining gap is the return shape (queries plus metrics such as clicks/impressions), which the agent must guess.

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?

All five parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including the rowLimit default of 25 and max of 1000. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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 verb and resource with a clear directionality: queries driving traffic to a page. This contrasts implicitly with reverse-direction siblings like get_gsc_query_pages, though that sibling is never named, so an agent must infer the distinction from names alone.

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?

Adds a motivating use case ("understanding what a page ranks for") and a hard prerequisite (GSC must be connected). However, it gives no when-not guidance and never names an alternative sibling such as get_gsc_query_pages or get_gsc_top_queries for agents choosing between overlapping query tools.

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