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

Annotations already establish readOnly=true, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond that: the data scope is organic-only, paid ads are excluded, and the metric set returned is stated. It stops short of describing row limits or ordering, which keeps it from a 5.

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-loads the resource and metric list, then the trigger phrases, then the scope exclusion — a sensible order with little waste. The demo marker and the quoted trigger list add slight noise but both serve routing purposes.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what is left: what is measured and what is out of scope. Granularity (top-N rows, sort order) and aggregation level are not addressed, but that is a minor gap given the structured fields.

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% and the single date_range parameter is fully documented with accepted formats and a default. The description contributes nothing about date handling, so it sits at the baseline for a well-described schema.

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?

Names the specific resource (organic Google search queries the site appears for) and enumerates the returned metrics (query, clicks, impressions, CTR, average position). The closing line 'Solo búsqueda orgánica; no incluye publicidad pagada' separates it from the Google Ads siblings, so the agent can tell it apart without opening a schema.

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?

Provides concrete user-intent triggers ('por qué nos encuentran', 'queries SEO', 'keywords orgánicas') that map well onto when to reach for this tool, plus an explicit exclusion of paid search. It does not, however, name which sibling to use instead for page-level or summary-level views (list_search_console_pages, get_search_console_summary).

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