gsc_page_query_matrix

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It explains that page_url uses GSC 'contains' if no protocol is provided, and gives default values for dates and row_limit. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, if it requires specific permissions, or any rate limits. The behavior is partially transparent but leaves gaps.

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 concise, consisting of a single-sentence summary followed by a bulleted list of parameters with their details. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes information, though the format could be slightly more compact.

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, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the tool's purpose, all parameters with behavioral details (e.g., partial URL matching), and default values. For a tool with 5 parameters and an output schema, this provides sufficient completeness.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for properties, meaning the input schema provides no explanatory text. The tool description compensates well by listing each parameter with its meaning and defaults (e.g., country: 3-letter code, empty for global; start_date: YYYY-MM-DD, default 31 days ago). This adds significant value beyond the 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 tool's purpose: to find which queries drive impressions/clicks to a specific page. This is a specific verb ('find queries') and resource ('specific page'), and it naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like gsc_query_to_pages (reverse mapping) and gsc_search_analytics (broader analytics).

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest other tools for different scenarios (e.g., when to use gsc_query_to_pages instead). The context signals list many sibling tools, but the description itself lacks any explicit usage guidelines.

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