gsc_branded_vs_unbranded

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains that the tool 'splits' GSC totals, indicating an analysis operation. However, it does not disclose whether it modifies data, authentication needs, rate limits, or the nature of the output. The description adds some context but lacks depth for a tool with no annotations.

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 very concise: one sentence summarizing the purpose followed by a clean parameter list. No unnecessary words or repetition. It earns its place with every sentence.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere) and parameters are well explained, the description is fairly complete. A minor gap is that 'brand_terms' could be clearer about whether it accepts patterns or exact terms, but overall it is sufficient.

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 add meaning. It does so by listing each parameter with format hints (e.g., 'YYYY-MM-DD' for dates), defaults, and an explanation for brand_terms ('Comma-separated brand regex terms'). This adds significant value beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the purpose: 'Split GSC totals into branded vs unbranded query buckets.' It uses a specific verb (split) and resource (GSC totals), making the tool's function immediately clear. The purpose distinguishes it from siblings like gsc_totals which aggregates without splitting.

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 usage when a branded vs unbranded breakdown is needed but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. For instance, it could mention that for raw totals, use gsc_totals, or for other segmentations, use other tools. The description is adequate but not fully instructive.

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