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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: every total is computed against the previous equal-length window, and the default window is the last 28 stored days. It does not say what happens when both website identifiers are supplied or none.

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 dense sentences with zero filler; the read tag, resource, comparison semantics and defaults are all front-loaded in a single pass.

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 7 optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description should at minimum clarify identifier requirements and the interplay between `days` and `start_date`/`end_date`. It leaves those and the device/country filters entirely unaddressed, though the metric list partially compensates since no output schema exists.

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 carries full burden, yet it only explains `seliee_website_id`/`seliee_website_uuid`, `start_date`/`end_date` format and the default window. The `device`, `country`, and `days` parameters are given no meaning anywhere, and it never states that at least one website identifier must be supplied.

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 resource and metric set (Search Console totals: clicks, impressions, ctr, position) plus the distinctive comparison shape (window vs. previous equal-length window), which separates it from gservice_query_daily, gservice_query_breakdown and gservice_query_grouped. It never names the sibling it is not, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 `[read]` tag and the 'default last 28 stored days' note imply when it applies and what happens if dates are omitted. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over gservice_query_daily or gservice_query_insights, and no exclusions.

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