Weekly GSC decay curve

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. Description adds that it is a read-only GSC query and classifies trends, but does not reveal additional behavioral traits beyond annotations. 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?

Two concise sentences front-loaded with main purpose. Every sentence adds value: first states the action, second provides context and read-only hint. No wasted words.

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?

With existing output schema and annotations, description covers key aspects. Mentions trend classification which adds value. Could be more complete regarding return values, but output schema likely covers that.

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 covers 50% of parameters with descriptions (only 'url' has description). Description adds context for 'weeks' (default 12) which is already in schema as default. No additional semantic meaning beyond schema.

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?

Description uses specific verbs ('bucket', 'classify') and clearly states the resource (GSC clicks/impressions/avg-position). It differentiates from siblings by mentioning it underpins the verdict engine's decay rules.

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?

Explicitly states it is a read-only GSC query and associates with the verdict engine's decay rules, indicating when to use. However, no explicit 'when not to use' or direct alternatives among siblings.

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