Search Console opportunities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the trailing 'Read only' is largely redundant. The description does add real behavioral context the annotations cannot: a single request, a window of the last N days ending two days ago (a data-freshness lag), and that each list is sorted by impressions. Return-field detail is absent but there is no output schema to lean on, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its two result lists, followed by two short supporting sentences on time window and read-only nature. The first sentence is dense and run-on, and 'Read only' is wasted given the annotations, but nothing is padded.

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, no-output-schema tool the description does the necessary work: it defines both result lists, the sort order, and the data window. What is missing is the per-row shape (which metrics accompany each query/page) and whether the no_clicks list is also bounded by limit, though the schema's 'rows returned in each list' largely covers the latter.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add one genuinely non-schema fact — that min_position, max_position and min_impressions scope only the striking_distance list, not no_clicks — but it leaves days/limit/dimension/client_id entirely to the schema, so it does not exceed the baseline by much.

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 uses a specific verb-plus-resource framing and, more importantly, spells out the exact two output lists it produces ('striking_distance' filtered by position and impressions, 'no_clicks' for zero-click rows). That makes it clearly distinguishable from gsc_performance or gsc_inspect_url without opening a schema. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is a 4 rather than a 5.

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 only implied: the phrase 'opportunities' and the striking-distance/no-clicks definitions suggest an optimization-audit scenario, but the description never states when to pick this over gsc_performance or gsc_inspect_url. There are no exclusions or preconditions beyond the client/site resolution already carried by the schema.

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