gsc_position_distribution

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

No annotations are provided. The description discloses the bucketing logic and parameter defaults, but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, rate limits, or data freshness. It assumes the agent understands GSC context but lacks explicit behavioral caveats.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose followed by a clean list of arguments with defaults. No unnecessary words, and every sentence adds 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?

Given that an output schema exists (context flag true), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers input parameters thoroughly. Minor omission: no mention of what the output looks like (e.g., counts per bucket), but the output schema likely fills this gap.

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 input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully documents each parameter with format (YYYY-MM-DD) and defaults, and clarifies the country code format and meaning of empty. This compensates well for the schema gap.

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 function: 'Bucket indexed pages by average position' with specific ranges (1-3/4-10/11-20/21+). This distinguishes it from siblings like gsc_search_analytics or gsc_totals, which serve different analytical purposes.

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 explains parameters and defaults but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gsc_search_analytics for query-level data). No explicit usage context or selection criteria is given.

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