advanced_search_analytics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds significant guidance: base analysis only on returned data, report exact numbers, avoid speculation, state when data is insufficient, and always present results as an interactive visualization. This goes beyond typical tool descriptions, though it doesn't cover potential API limitations or auth requirements.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, then IMPORANT and PRESENTATION sections. It is longer than average, but the additional instructions about analysis and visualization are purposeful. It remains front-loaded and scannable, though the presentation block 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?

The description is fairly complete for a query tool given the rich schema, but it lacks any explanation of the return value structure, and there is no output schema. While order_by and dimensions imply standard metrics (clicks, impressions, CTR, position), the agent is not explicitly told what the response contains. This is a clear gap, though the behavioral instructions partially 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description mentions supported filtering dimensions (country, device, query, page) which mirrors the schema's 'dimension' property, but adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema. Thus the baseline 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: 'Run a custom search analytics query with flexible dimensions and filters.' It also specifies supported dimensions (country, device, query, page) and positions it as a power-user tool for 'specific data cuts,' distinguishing it from specialized sibling tools like content_gaps or traffic_drops.

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 phrase 'For power users who need specific data cuts' implies when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no direct contrast with sibling tools, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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