search_analytics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses automatic pagination past the API cap, the maxRows safety cap, truncation signalling, and the significant side effect that large pulls are written to a CSV/JSON file with only a preview returned inline. Not covered: auth/property-permission requirements, rate limits, or failure modes.

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?

Four sentences, zero filler, and the front-loaded first sentence states the operation and its pagination scope. Each subsequent sentence adds a distinct, decision-relevant fact (coverage block, how to read it, file spill).

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?

For a 13-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return contract: coverage block contents, truncation flag, property totals, and the file-plus-preview behavior. The remaining gap is that it never describes the shape of the row objects themselves (dimension keys plus clicks/impressions/CTR/position).

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 coverage is already 85%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning on top: maxRows is framed as the cap that ends paging, and outputFile/previewRows/inlineRowLimit are explained collectively as the file-spill-with-preview behavior. It adds little on dimensions, filters, type, or dataState, which the schema already handles.

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?

"Pull Search Console performance rows" names a specific verb and resource, and the sentence immediately scopes it (paging past the 25,000-row API cap until exhausted or maxRows is hit). This is unambiguously distinct from the only sibling, list_sites, which enumerates properties rather than returning performance data.

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?

Gives clear operating context: the pull auto-paginates, is capped by maxRows, and the coverage block must be read before drawing conclusions. It stops short of explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use routing or stating prerequisites, but with a single unrelated sibling the practical need is low.

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