gsc_anonymous_traffic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds strong guidance: 'Base your analysis ONLY on the data returned,' 'Do not speculate about causes,' and 'If the data does not contain enough information to answer a question, say so clearly.' It also mandates interactive visualization. This goes well beyond the basic purpose, though it does not cover every potential aspect (e.g., error conditions, costs).

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 longer than typical but is well-structured with a clear purpose, a single prerequisite, and detailed IMPORTANT/PRESENTATION sections. It is front-loaded with the core functionality, and each section serves a purpose given the complexity of the tool, though the presentation instructions are somewhat verbose.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description comprehensively covers what the tool does, why it is needed, how to handle data limitations, and what output format to produce. It explicitly addresses the 'insufficient data' case and prescribes a rich interactive visualization, making it complete for an agent to invoke and use correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters ('days' and 'dataset') with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail; it only reiterates the BigQuery dataset requirement in prose. Since the schema handles parameter semantics, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Analyse anonymous (hidden) query traffic that the GSC API cannot show' and specifies exactly what it reveals: 'what percentage of your clicks come from queries Google redacts, and which pages get the most hidden traffic.' This distinguishes it from sibling GSC analysis tools by focusing on hidden/anonymous traffic.

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 provides a clear prerequisite: 'Only possible with BigQuery bulk export,' which signals when this tool should be used. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or give exclusion criteria, but the unique scope is evident from the purpose statement, giving the agent enough context to select it appropriately.

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