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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the prerequisite of GSC connection, which is useful, but does not detail return format, pagination, or what happens without an active connection. Some added value beyond annotations, but not extensive.

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 function, followed by a use case, a prerequisite, and a direct action. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague wording. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 lookup tool with fully documented schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential points: purpose, use case, and setup requirement. It does not describe the response shape, but that is not critical given the simple output and absence of an output schema. It is a complete and practical description.

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?

The input schema fully describes all five parameters with examples and defaults (e.g., rowLimit default 25, max 1000). The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond restating the query concept. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema carries the parameter information.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('pages'), and scope ('for a specific search query'). It differentiates from sibling tools like get_gsc_top_queries or get_gsc_page_queries by explicitly focusing on pages matching a given query.

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: 'identifying which pages compete for the same keyword.' It also states the prerequisite of having Google Search Console connected and gives a direct integration URL. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient.

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