Weekly GSC Performance Digest

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations by disclosing the output format (markdown), the time window (7 days ending on end_date), the comparative nature (week-over-week), included sections, and the default behavior for end_date. There is no contradiction with annotations; the read-only nature is consistent.

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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose is first, followed by the specific output contents and a default behavior note. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

For a tool with only 2 parameters, 1 required, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the report contains, the date window, the target property scope, and the default end_date behavior. No critical calling context is missing.

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?

With schema description coverage at 100%, the input schema already fully documents both parameters, including the site_url format variants and the default for end_date. The tool description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Generate'), a resource ('weekly SEO report for one Google Search Console property'), and the exact output scope (7 days ending on end_date, week-over-week comparison, top pages, query trends, action item). This makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like analytics.query or individual insights tools.

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 makes the intended use clear: produce a plain-language weekly digest for a single GSC property. It does not explicitly mention when to use a sibling like analytics.query instead, but the context of a scheduled/plain-language weekly report is enough to guide selection. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative-routing guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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