Search Console sites

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description's 'Read only' adds nothing. What it does add is genuinely non-obvious behavior: with several clients registered, other clients' sites are masked, and the returned permission level determines whether sitemaps may be submitted.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource before listing returned attributes. The parenthetical enumerations of address format and permission levels are useful but make it slightly run-on.

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 usefully enumerates what is returned (address, permission level, whether it is the configured site, whether sitemaps may be submitted) and discloses the multi-client masking caveat. Nothing essential to invoking a single-optional-parameter read tool appears to be missing.

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 100%, so client_id is already documented in the schema (including 'Required when several clients are registered'). The description nevertheless adds meaning to that parameter by explaining the multi-client masking consequence that makes client scoping matter.

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 states a specific resource and scope: the Search Console properties visible to the client's Google token, with the address format (sc-domain: or URL prefix) spelled out. It is clearly distinct from gsc_performance, gsc_sitemaps and gsc_inspect_url by resource, though it never names those siblings to route the agent explicitly.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. Usage is only implied: a discovery step for properties before calling gsc_performance or gsc_sitemaps. The multi-client masking note hints at the scoping condition but is not framed as usage advice.

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