advanced_search_analytics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the tool as a query runner but does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The IMPORTANT section instructs the agent on analysis and presentation, not on the tool's own behavior. The agent cannot assess whether the tool is read-only or has destructive potential.

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 moderately concise for the main functional part, but it includes lengthy IMPORTANT and PRESENTATION sections that are instructions for the agent, not about the tool itself. These sections add clutter and could be reduced or moved to a separate system message. The structure front-loads the core purpose, which is good, but the extra content dilutes focus.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the query capabilities well but lacks details on return format, pagination behavior, error handling, and data limits beyond row_limit. The IMPORTANT section provides analysis guidance but not tool context. Overall, the description is adequate but leaves gaps in behavioral and output expectations.

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 input schema already documents all parameters with descriptions. The description adds minimal new meaning: it lists the supported dimensions and search types, which are also present in the schema. It does not explain parameter interactions or provide examples beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 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 lists supported dimensions and search types, making the purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from 28 sibling tools (e.g., traffic_drops, content_gaps), relying on the phrase 'For power users who need specific data cuts' to imply a more advanced role.

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 indirect guidance ('For power users who need specific data cuts'), suggesting when to use it over simpler predefined reports. However, it does not state when NOT to use it, nor does it name specific alternative tools. The agent must infer that this is a general-purpose query tool versus specialized sibling tools.

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