geo_report_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — it operates on the *last* imported CSV, implying results reflect the most recent local import rather than live data — but says nothing about what happens when no CSV exists, how fresh the snapshot is, or whether the summary is per-property.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity edges into under-specification because the one clause it does contain ('CSV generativo') is the least self-explanatory part.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what the summary contains — metrics, dimensions, time range — and it does not. For a report/summary tool the agent cannot judge whether the result answers its question, nor anticipate the empty-import case.

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?

Only one parameter (siteUrl) and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself stating 'URL exacta de la propiedad verificada.' The description adds no extra meaning, such as whether siteUrl must match an imported CSV's property exactly or how mismatches are handled, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a resource ('Resumen del último CSV generativo de Google importado localmente') but the phrase 'CSV generativo' is ambiguous — it never states what the CSV contains (Search Console export? GA4?) or what the summary reports on. It implicitly distinguishes itself from live-API siblings like gsc_search_performance by saying the data is 'importado localmente', but an agent must infer that distinction rather than being told it.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. The precondition that a CSV must already have been imported locally is hinted at only inside a noun phrase, not stated as a requirement, and nothing tells the agent whether to prefer this over gsc_search_performance for the same siteUrl.

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