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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are sorted by impressions and question detection is multilingual (the German examples wie/was/warum), which tells the agent the filter is not English-only.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the filtering rule and sort order front-loaded before the downstream use cases. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description should carry more weight, and it omits the time window and result cap entirely. The purpose and multilingual filtering are clear, but an agent cannot predict result size or recency from this text alone.

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 only 33% — just the required property field is documented. The description never mentions the days window (default 90, max 480) or the limit (default 50, max 500), so it fails to compensate for the two undocumented parameters.

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 names a specific resource (queries phrased as questions) and a scope modifier (sorted by impressions), which implicitly separates it from gsc_top_queries and gsc_page_queries. It stops short of naming those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told it.

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?

"Direct input for FAQ sections, featured snippets and new articles" describes what to do with the output, which implies the tool's use case, but it gives no when-to-use versus when-not guidance and never names an alternative sibling tool.

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