snapshot_gsc

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states persistence but does not disclose side effects (overwrite vs. append), idempotency, or permission requirements. The only behavioral detail is default dimensions.

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?

The description is two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states purpose and the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter semantics and behavioral details. The output schema exists but is not referenced, so the description does not compensate.

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 0% and the description only mentions default dimensions for one parameter. It provides no explanation for site_url, start_date, end_date, row_limit, or search_type, leaving 5 of 6 parameters undocumented.

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 clearly states the verb 'Run' and the resource 'GSC performance query' with the outcome 'persist the rows as a snapshot'. It distinguishes from sibling gsc_performance by emphasizing persistence and scheduling for time-series.

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 description explicitly says to run on a schedule (cron, n8n, lauchd) to build a time-series, providing clear use context. However, it does not mention when not to use or explicitly compare to alternatives like gsc_performance.

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