Google Search Console MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While it mentions defaults (dimensions='query', limit=10), it fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether the operation is read-only/safe, what the comparison output format looks like (deltas? percentages?), data freshness limitations, or rate limiting. For a 7-parameter analytics tool with no output schema, this is insufficient.

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 description is efficiently structured with a one-line purpose statement followed by a well-formatted Args section. There is minimal fluff, though the docstring-style 'Args:' formatting in a description field is slightly formal, it remains readable and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 5 required, dual time periods, grouping dimensions) and the absence of both input schema descriptions (0% coverage) and output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to describe the return structure (what metrics are compared? how are they presented?) or GSC-specific constraints like data sampling.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially via the Args section by documenting date formats (YYYY-MM-DD), site_url formats, and default values. However, it fails to specify valid values for the 'dimensions' parameter beyond the default 'query' (e.g., can it be 'page', 'country', 'device'?), leaving significant semantic gaps.

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 opening sentence clearly states the tool compares search analytics data between two time periods (specific verb + resource). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_search_analytics' or 'get_advanced_search_analytics' which likely handle single-period queries.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use single-period analytics vs. this comparison tool). The only usage hints are implicit in the Args section regarding parameter formatting (e.g., date formats, domain property syntax).

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