gsc_query_advanced

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuine behavioral trait: Google may cap/limit returned rows, which directly motivates pagination. It omits other important behavior such as auth requirements (verified property), rate limits, default row counts, and how multiple filters are combined.

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 waste and no boilerplate. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for an 8-parameter tool, which is a completeness issue rather than a structural one.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, one sentence is thin. Filter combination logic, defaults for limit/startRow, and the shape/meaning of the response are all unaddressed, leaving real gaps for correct invocation.

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 only 38% across 8 parameters. The description compensates partially by mapping to dimensions (1-3), filters, and pagination, but says nothing about type, siteUrl, or date handling, leaving several parameters undocumented in both places.

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 the resource and the actual capabilities (Search Analytics query with 1-3 dimensions, filters, pagination), so an agent knows this is the raw/flexible query tool. It does not, however, contrast itself with siblings like gsc_search_performance or gsc_page_performance, so the agent must infer that this is the general-purpose variant.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The row-limit note hints that pagination (startRow/limit) may be needed, but the description never says when to pick this over the fixed-report siblings.

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