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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema behavior: an authentication prerequisite with a remediation URL, and multi-account routing ("the property is read through the account that can see it").

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 core purpose in the first sentence, then layers use cases, prerequisites and account behavior. Four sentences with no filler, though the integrations URL line could be compressed.

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?

With no output schema, the description does describe the payload shape (query→page pairings) adequately, and prerequisites are fully covered. Minor gap: no mention of result volume/pagination behavior beyond the schema's rowLimit cap.

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% – site, startDate, endDate and rowLimit (default 100, max 1000) are all documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, formatting or defaulting detail beyond that, so 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 ("Get query+page combinations: which exact queries are landing on which pages") and names concrete analytical use cases. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical siblings get_gsc_page_queries and get_gsc_query_pages, so an agent must still guess which of the three to pick.

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 usage context (keyword cannibalization detection, search funnel understanding) and states the prerequisite that GSC must be connected plus the action to take if it isn't. It stops short of the explicit when-not/alternative routing that the three overlapping GSC query-page siblings really demand.

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