gsc_quick_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It describes the output (totals, top10 queries, top10 pages) and default date ranges, implying a read-only snapshot. However, it does not explicitly state safety (e.g., no side effects) or discuss authentication or rate limits. The behavioral transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 highly concise with no wasted words. It is structured into three logical paragraphs: purpose, usage, and parameters. The most important information (what it does and when to use it) is front-loaded, and every sentence serves a purpose.

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 (as indicated by context signals), the description adequately covers the tool's behavior: returning totals and top 10s for queries and pages. The description does not need to detail return values. For a snapshot tool, it is sufficiently complete for its intended use.

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, but the description provides clear parameter explanations in the Args section: start_date and end_date with format and defaults, and country with an example. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 it provides 'GSC totals + top 10 queries + top 10 pages in one call,' specifying that it replaces three separate calls, and positions it as the starting point for organic search queries. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gsc_totals and gsc_search_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 explicitly says 'Use this as the starting point for any 'how is organic search doing?' question,' indicating when to use it. It also mentions it avoids calling multiple tools separately. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or alternative tools beyond stating it replaces them.

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