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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the connection requirement, the integration link, and how the property is resolved when multiple Google accounts exist.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information (what it returns, the prerequisite with the fix link, the account-resolution rule). Front-loaded with the core purpose; no filler.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, required metrics returned, the auth prerequisite, and account ambiguity. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 site, startDate, endDate, and rowLimit are already documented with formats and defaults. The description adds no syntax or edge-case detail for these parameters, 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 (Get), resource (top pages on a site), ranking metric (clicks from Google Search), and the returned measures (impressions, CTR, average position). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_gsc_top_queries and the generic get_top_pages.

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 a clear prerequisite (Google Search Console must be connected) plus the exact remediation URL, and explains multi-account behavior. It stops short of naming when to choose this over get_top_pages or get_gsc_page_queries, so it lacks explicit alternatives/exclusions.

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