gsc_search_performance

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about Search Console's data lag, API quota behavior, the 1000-row cap, or whether the default 1000-row limit silently truncates results — all things an agent needs to know when calling this.

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 efficient sentence with the resource and dimensions front-loaded and no filler. It is under-specified rather than verbose, so brevity here is real but comes at the cost of information.

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?

There is no output schema and annotations already cover the safety/idempotency profile, so completeness is judged on the description alone (correct baseline 4). For a read-only reporting tool with 5 parameters that the schema mostly documents, the definition is sufficiently complete and correctly invocable — the only soft spot is behavioral guidance, which is scored separately.

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 60%: siteUrl and both dates are documented in the schema, but limit (default/max 1000) and the dimension enum carry no description. The description re-lists the five dimension values but adds no semantics beyond the enum itself, and says nothing about how dimension drives the aggregation or about the row limit.

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 specific metric set (clics, impresiones, CTR, posición) and the breakdown dimensions, so the resource is identifiable. But it is a bare noun phrase with no verb indicating retrieval/reporting, and it does not distinguish itself from heavily overlapping siblings such as gsc_page_performance, gsc_query_advanced or get_bing_clicks_and_impressions.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling performance tools, and no stated prerequisites. An agent must infer from the sibling names alone that this is the generic dimension-driven variant.

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