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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned metric set, but says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering of 'top' rows, or data freshness beyond 'the window'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource, its source, and the output fields with zero filler. Nothing is wasted.

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 usefully lists the four metrics an agent will receive, and the schema covers the inputs. It stops short of explaining row ordering, data latency, or empty-result behavior, but is adequate for a simple read-only list.

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%, so days, limit and project_id are fully documented in the schema, and the description adds nothing about them. Baseline 3 applies; the description's mention of 'the window' loosely echoes the days param but adds no new 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Top search queries from Search Console') and enumerates the metrics returned (clicks, impressions, CTR, average position). It's clearly distinguishable from siblings like gsc_top_pages and gsc_page_queries via the resource name, though it never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource name — an agent can infer this is for query-level performance. There is no explicit 'use this when...'/when-not guidance or reference to the sibling query/page tools that would clarify selection.

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