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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: GSC must be connected, the user should be directed to the integrations page, and multi-account property resolution is handled automatically.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds prerequisite and account-routing details. It is efficient, though the sentence about understanding what a page ranks for is slightly generic.

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 fully documented parameters, the description covers the key selection and invocation context: what it returns conceptually, the integration requirement, and multi-account behavior. It does not describe return fields or pagination behavior, but those gaps are relatively minor given the schema coverage and annotations.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, including rowLimit defaults and searchType limits. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Get search queries driving traffic to a specific page.' The page-level scope is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as get_gsc_query_pages or get_gsc_top_queries.

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?

It provides a clear use case: 'Useful for understanding what a page ranks for.' It also states the Google Search Console prerequisite, but it does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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