gsc_report

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

The description provides strong behavioral guidance: instructs to base analysis only on returned data, report exact numbers, avoid speculation, and state when data is insufficient. With no annotations provided, this is essential context. It also specifies the presentation style using artifacts and dashboard-like formatting.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by necessary constraints and presentation requirements. The PRESENTATION section is detailed but justified for a report tool. It is somewhat long but every sentence serves a purpose and is well structured.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description makes the return format clear as markdown. It covers the report composition, data fidelity rules, and presentation expectations, which is sufficient for an agent to understand how to handle the result. The only minor gap is explicit connection to sibling tools.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters, giving 100% coverage. The tool description repeats the section names already found in the include_sections parameter description, adding no new semantic value. The days and dataset parameters are only documented in the schema.

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 'Generate a comprehensive markdown performance report' and enumerates all covered sections (site snapshot, alerts, quick wins, traffic drops, content decay, recommendations). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual areas like gsc_quick_wins or gsc_site_snapshot.

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 implied through the list of sections, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this comprehensive tool versus the individual sibling tools. No alternatives are named or exclusions provided, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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