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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, but the description adds real context: the metric set returned, the click-based ordering, the connection prerequisite, and the account-selection behavior when multiple accounts exist. This goes meaningfully beyond what the annotations provide.

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-loaded with purpose and return contents, then prerequisites and account behavior. Every sentence carries information, though the final multi-account sentence is somewhat niche and could be trimmed.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly discloses the return fields (clicks, impressions, CTR, average position). With auth and ordering covered and 100% schema documentation, the definition is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter (site, startDate, endDate, rowLimit) is already documented in the schema with format examples. The description adds nothing param-specific, 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 the top search queries driving traffic to a site') with the ordering rule ('ordered by clicks') and names the returned metrics. An agent can distinguish this from get_gsc_top_pages or get_gsc_query_trend from the description alone.

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 preconditions: Google Search Console must be connected, the user is directed to the integrations URL, and the multi-account resolution rule is stated. It stops short of explicitly contrasting when to use this over siblings like get_gsc_query_trend or get_gsc_opportunity_queries.

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