get_gsc_clusters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and delivers: it declares cost ('Credits: 0'), safety ('read-only'), quota behavior ('Runs on the project owner's Google quota'), and the async state model via 'computing'/'stale' flags. It omits whether results are cached or how long computation takes, but covers the key behavioral traits well.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then structured into a return-value sentence and a parameter/constraint tail. Dense but largely waste-free; the parameter note at the end is slightly abrupt rather than clearly sectioned.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return shape exhaustively, yet it still summarizes returns usefully. For a 4-parameter read-only tool with no annotations it covers safety, cost, quota, and the drill-down path; the main gap is the undocumented 'days' window.

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 compensate, and it only partially does. It adds real meaning for country (ISO alpha-3, e.g. deu) and top_n (clusters by impressions, default counts implied), but 'days' and 'project_id' are never explained in either schema or description.

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 ('Topic clusters from Search Console') and names the exact sibling it pairs with ('stable cluster_key for get_cluster_keywords'), so an agent can distinguish it from the many other content/SEO tools. It also enumerates what is returned (quick wins, alerts, totals, flags).

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 mention of cluster_key 'for get_cluster_keywords' implies a follow-up workflow, and top_n framing implies ranking usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusion guidance. Usage is only implied.

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