sc_top_queries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context: Search Console data lags 2-3 days and limit caps at 25000 rows. Return format is left to the output schema.

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?

Purpose sentence and per-argument list are front-loaded and waste-free; each line earns its place by encoding a format constraint. The dict-style 'Args:' layout is readable but slightly verbose for a 5-parameter tool.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it covers all parameters plus the data-freshness caveat. The only real gap is guidance on choosing this tool over its query/page-oriented siblings.

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 carries the full burden and does so well: site_url format with the 'sc-domain:' vs URL forms and a pointer to sc_list_sites, date format 'YYYY-MM-DD', limit max 25000, and country as an ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 code with examples ('mex'/'usa'). Every parameter gets concrete format guidance the schema lacks.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Top search queries') and enumerates the returned metrics (clicks, impressions, CTR, average position). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like sc_page_performance and sc_query_breakdown_by_page, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource ('queries' vs 'pages') and the required date range, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to an alternative tool. An agent must infer selection from sibling names alone.

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