gsc_overview

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

The description transparently discloses key behaviors: Live summary semantics, UTC windows ending ~2 days ago due to reporting lag, the paid plan requirement (Starter+), and the {configured:false, message} fallback when GSC isn't connected. No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and bundles headline totals, splits, and time series. The two-sentence functional part is tight and dense with no waste. The trailing condition about the fallback response adds genuine value.

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?

Despite a rich multi-part output (headline totals, top queries, top pages, country/device splits, day-by-day series) and no output schema, the description enumerates each return component explicitly. It also covers parameter semantics (window ending ~2 days ago) and failure modes, making it materially complete.

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 100% and both parameters already have descriptions. The description adds marginal extra context (the ~2-day lag aligns with the schema's 'ends ~2 days ago' note) but doesn't add new meaning beyond what the input schema documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('SUMMARY for a domain over the last N days') and enumerates the exact data returned (headline totals, top queries, pages, country/device splits, time series). It also delivers a clear 'Best default for...' positioning statement, distinguishing it from siblings like gsc_query and gsc_status.

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 states when to use it ('Best default for how is my search traffic doing?') and implicitly contrasts with more granular siblings (gsc_query, gsc_status). It also states the paid-plan prerequisite and the failure condition, giving clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools but the 'Best default' framing plus sibling presence provides guidance.

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