gsc_query_advanced

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that Google may cap returned rows — but says nothing about auth requirements, quota/rate limits, or how the cap manifests.

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 zero filler and the row-limit caveat placed last. It is efficient, though for an 8-parameter tool the terseness borders on under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 the tool's complexity (8 params, filter array, enums, no output schema) the description is too thin — it never explains what rows are returned or how dimensions shape output. Annotations cover safety, but a complex analytics query deserves more than one clause.

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 coverage is only 38%, so the description should compensate, and it partially does by mapping to dimensions (capped at 1-3), filters, and pagination (startRow/limit). But it leaves the enum values, filter operators, and site/date requirements entirely to the schema, so it adds only partial meaning over structured fields.

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 ('Search Analytics') and its key capabilities (1-3 dimensions, filters, pagination), so an agent knows exactly what it does. However, it does not distinguish it from close siblings like gsc_search_performance or gsc_page_performance, leaving ambiguity about when this advanced variant is preferred.

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 only guidance is a caveat ('Google puede limitar filas'), which is behavioral, not a when-to-use rule. There is no mention of prerequisites, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as the simpler sibling performance tools.

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