GSC quick wins (positions 5-15)

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

The description adds that the tool is a read-only GSC pull (consistent with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint) and returns sorted results. It does not disclose behavioral details like rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. Since annotations already provide safety and idempotency, the description adds moderate value.

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 consists of two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and end with sorting and source details. Every sentence adds distinct value without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema, yet the description omits parameter details and does not mention the output format. While the purpose is clear, the lack of parameter semantics and output specification leaves the tool incomplete for effective usage.

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 for parameter meaning. However, it only vaguely references positions and impressions, without explaining any of the 5 parameters (min_position, max_position, min_impressions, window, limit). This leaves a significant gap for the agent to understand parameter semantics.

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 states the tool's purpose: scanning GSC for (page, query) pairs in positions 5-15 with non-trivial impressions and low CTR relative to position expectation, returning top results sorted by impressions. It specifies the tool is for title-rewrite wins and is platform-agnostic, distinguishing it from sibling tools that may be platform-specific or focus on other metrics.

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 implies the tool is used for identifying quick title-rewrite opportunities, but it does not explicitly state when to use or not use it compared to alternatives. No guidance is given on prerequisites or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the purpose.

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