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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: a required GSC connection, a remediation URL for connecting, and multi-account resolution behavior ('property is read through the account that can see it') — none of which is in the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose then prerequisite then account behavior. Each sentence carries distinct information with minimal waste; only the integration URL sentence is arguably verbose.

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, fully-schema-documented tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and account-resolution behavior. The only minor gap is no note on pagination/row behavior beyond what rowLimit's schema already states.

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%, with each of the five parameters documented in-schema (site, query, start/end date, rowLimit with default and max). The description adds no additional syntax or format guidance, 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Get all pages that rank for a specific search query.' That is clear and distinguishable from the inverse siblings (get_gsc_page_queries). However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like get_gsc_page_queries or get_gsc_query_page_pairs, which an agent must infer.

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?

'Useful for identifying which pages compete for the same keyword' gives an implied use case, and the connection prerequisite is stated. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative for the closely related inverse tool, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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