gsc_totals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects. It only lists parameters and their defaults.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses a clear structure with a single-sentence summary followed by parameter list. Minor improvement could be more structured formatting, but it's efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool has only 3 optional parameters and an output schema exists, the description is fairly complete. It explains the output (aggregate totals with specific metrics), input formats and defaults, and global option for country. No significant gaps are apparent for this simple tool.

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 compensates by explaining parameter formats (YYYY-MM-DD for dates, 3-letter country code with examples like usa, gbr, can) and defaults. It also clarifies that empty country means global. This adds significant meaning 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 returns aggregate Google Search Console totals (clicks, impressions, CTR, position). The verb 'get' and resource 'aggregate totals' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like gsc_quick_snapshot or gsc_search_analytics, which may also return totals.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where this tool is preferred or what not to use it for. Sibling tools exist for more detailed breakdowns, but that distinction is not made.

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