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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety; instead it adds a genuinely useful trait: results come from stored data when that data covers the period, otherwise live from Google. That timing/caching behavior is not derivable from the schema and materially affects expectations. It stops short of describing cost, rate limits, or latency of the live path.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the highest-value information (the report choices and what each means) is front-loaded before the days caveat. Dense but every clause carries selection-relevant content.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the right work: it explains what each report type contains and how the period argument behaves, which is enough to call the tool correctly. It stops short of describing the shape of any returned report, so an agent cannot fully anticipate the response.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning, and it largely does: it defines what each report enum value returns and constrains days to 7/28/90/180/365/480 while noting it is ignored for decay. The projectId parameter is never explained (presumably a Project scope), which is the one meaningful gap.

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 (Read) plus resource (a report for the Project's Search Console property) and enumerates the four mutually exclusive report types with a one-line gloss for each (striking_distance = positions 4-20, decay = 12 months of monthly clicks). This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like get_search_console_breakdown or get_search_console_trend by content rather than guesswork.

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 selection mechanism: pick one of four named reports, and days applies to the first three but is ignored for decay. It lacks an explicit statement of when to prefer this over the sibling overview/breakdown/trend tools, so the agent must infer that boundary from the report enum.

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