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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: it discloses the prerequisite connection to Google Search Console, lists the returned metrics (clicks, impressions, CTR, average position), and states the ordering by clicks. This is useful context though it doesn't explain failure behavior if GSC is not connected.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose (sentence 1), output metrics (sentence 2), and prerequisite/navigation (sentence 3). It is succinct and front-loaded with the primary function, with no redundant phrasing.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it specifies what the tool does, what data it returns, and a required integration step. It lacks details on default row limits or date range handling, but these are in the schema and not essential for basic invocation. The metric list covers return values reasonably well.

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 parameter (site, startDate, endDate, rowLimit) already described. The description does not meaningfully add to parameter semantics; it only mentions 'a site' in the purpose statement, which mirrors the site parameter. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get the top search queries driving traffic to a site, ordered by clicks.' This uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('top search queries'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_gsc_top_pages or get_gsc_low_ctr_queries by explicitly focusing on top queries with ordering by clicks.

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?

The description provides a clear prerequisite: 'Requires Google Search Console to be connected' and directs users to a connection page. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_gsc_page_queries or get_gsc_query_pages. Usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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