gsc_topic_cluster

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds critical behavioral guidance: 'Base your analysis ONLY on the data returned', 'Do not speculate about causes', and mandates a rich visual presentation via artifacts. This goes beyond schema and helps the agent handle output responsibly, though it does not disclose internal details like data freshness or limitations of URL pattern matching.

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 a single long paragraph with multiple sections (purpose, IMPORTANT, PRESENTATION). It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the extensive behavioral and presentation instructions make it longer than necessary for a tool definition. Each section is relevant, but it could be more concise.

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 a tool with 3 params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input (url_pattern), and output metrics. It also provides analysis and presentation guidelines. It lacks a precise definition of 'group of pages' and doesn't explain the return structure, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to 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 documents all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond clarifying that url_pattern matches a URL path pattern, which is already in the schema. No new semantics for days or dataset are provided.

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 what the tool does: 'See how a group of pages performs as a whole. Aggregates clicks, impressions, CTR, and position for all pages matching a URL path pattern, plus top pages and queries.' It specifies the verb, resource, metrics, and scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like gsc_site_snapshot or gsc_cannibalisation.

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 implies a use case ('See how a group of pages performs as a whole') but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or mention exclusions. It lacks contrast with sibling tools such as gsc_site_snapshot or gsc_content_gaps, which could overlap in purpose.

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