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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 'last_synced' field and interprets zero tails as a stuck sync rather than a collapse, which is valuable behavioral context. It also states the 90-day limit and that it's site totals, not per-page. While it doesn't discuss return format or rate limits, it offers meaningful insight beyond a basic 'get data' statement.

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 a single dense but efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds a sibling comparison and a data-interpretation note. It's not bloated, though it could be slightly better structured by separating the last_synced caveat. Still, every phrase earns its place.

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 simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the metric series, the date granularity, the 90-day cap, and how to interpret the last_synced field. It lacks a description of the exact response shape, but the series and last_synced mention provide enough context for an agent to call it 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 description coverage is 50%, with project_id documented in the schema. The description adds 'fino a 90 giorni' which hints at the days parameter's purpose but doesn't explicitly state that days controls the number of days or its default value. It partially compensates for the undocumented days parameter but doesn't fully clarify its semantics.

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 returns a day-by-day series of site totals from Search Console with specific metrics (clicks, impressions, CTR, average position) and a 90-day limit. It explicitly contrasts with get_gsc_performance, establishing its unique role as the only GSC data with real dates, which distinguishes it from siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'usalo per datare un calo o un picco' (use it to date a drop or a peak) and explains that get_gsc_performance is for which queries/pages but only aggregated over fixed windows. It also clarifies scope with 'Totali di sito, non per pagina', preventing misuse.

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