searchconsole query search analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real operational context beyond that: the hard 1000-row cap per call and that paging is done via start_row, plus that dates are Pacific-time and inclusive. It does not mention quota/rate limits or permission prerequisites on the property, which keeps it short of 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?

The purpose sentence is front-loaded, then the remaining lines are a dense per-field cheat sheet with no filler. Every line carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess from an undocumented schema.

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, the description doesn't need to explain return values, and it covers the tricky inputs well. Gaps remain around search_type (which changes the entire dataset: web/image/video/news) and any auth or property-access prerequisite, so it is strong but not complete.

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 carry the load, and it does for site_url formats, date format/timezone/inclusivity, allowed dimensions, and the filters object with a concrete example. However row_limit (default 100, implied max 1000) and especially search_type (default 'web') are never explained, leaving two behavior-changing parameters undocumented in both places.

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 (query) and resource (search analytics metrics: clicks, impressions, CTR, position) scoped to a property. It is clearly distinguishable from searchconsole_list_sites and searchconsole_inspect_url by the metric/report framing, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 implied by the metric/date-range framing, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus searchconsole_inspect_url or searchconsole_list_sites, nor any prerequisites such as needing the property to be verified. An agent must infer the choice from tool names alone.

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