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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context such as grouping by query+page, brand filtering, sort/direction options, and the `per_page <= 500` cap. It does not explain pagination behavior, date-range defaults, or output shape.

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 sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the core purpose before parameter hints. The semicolon-heavy compression makes it efficient, though slightly terse for the number of parameters involved.

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?

This is a 13-parameter query tool with no required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema. The description covers the core grouping and a few filters, but omits important context such as date-range behavior, pagination, device/country/search filtering, and defaults. Given the tool's complexity, the description is not complete enough to guide correct invocation without extra inference.

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 compensate for 13 mostly undocumented parameters. It explains or hints at `seliee_website_id`, `seliee_website_uuid`, `brand`, `sort`, `dir`, and `per_page`, but leaves `days`, `page`, `device`, `search`, `country`, `start_date`, and `end_date` unexplained. The partial parameter guidance is useful but insufficient for the schema's low coverage.

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 a specific operation: Search Console rows grouped by query+page for a website. It identifies the website selector via `seliee_website_id` or `seliee_website_uuid`, so the resource and grouping are clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as `gservice_query_breakdown`, `gservice_query_daily`, `gservice_query_insights`, or `gservice_query_summary`.

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 explains what the tool returns but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus sibling query tools. There are no when-to-use conditions, no exclusions, and no named alternatives among the many `gservice_query_*` tools.

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