Search appearance / rich results report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile fully. The description adds the output scope (per-appearance-type clicks/impressions plus top pages), which is mildly useful context, but discloses nothing beyond that, such as aggregation behavior or data availability nuances. Consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.

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 leads with the purpose and packs the data details efficiently. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, which it does at a high level (clicks/impressions per type, top pages). With 4 parameters, one required, and safety annotations present, this is a reasonably complete report-tool definition, though it omits date-range aggregation behavior that the agent must infer from the schema.

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 75%, with endDate, startDate, and siteUrl well documented in the schema itself. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning; the mention of 'top pages for each appearance type' loosely maps to pagesPerType, but that parameter still lacks an explicit schema description and the tool description doesn't clarify it either. The description neither compensates for nor worsens the moderate coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Show how the site appears in Google results') with the exact data returned (clicks and impressions per search appearance type, top pages). The enumerated appearance types (rich results, FAQ, review snippet, video, AMP, Discover) make the scope concrete. It doesn't explicitly name the closest sibling gsc_search_analytics to differentiate, but the 'search appearance type' focus implicitly distinguishes 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?

No guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. With siblings like gsc_search_analytics (general query/page analytics) and gsc_index_coverage (indexation status), the agent receives no criteria for picking this report vs others. No exclusions, no alternative tool named.

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