search_analytics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses useful operational traits such as the default date range ending 2 days ago, pagination via start_row, and that multiple filters are ANDed, but it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or explicitly confirm read-only safety.

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 purpose, then organized cleanly into an Args block matching the parameters. Every sentence provides needed detail without redundancy, and the size is appropriate for an 8-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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 complexity, absent annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is largely complete for correct invocation. It covers nearly all parameter semantics and behavioral defaults, though it omits auth/permission notes and does not route the agent between this tool and compare_periods.

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 has 0% description coverage across 8 parameters, and the description compensates thoroughly. It explains site URL format, date formats and defaults, valid dimensions, row_limit range and default, filter object structure with operators, and search_type values.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Query Search Analytics', and enumerates the returned metrics (clicks, impressions, CTR, position). It is clearly distinguishable from most siblings like list_sites and inspect_url, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from compare_periods, which is also analytics-related.

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 Args section explains how to use parameters (defaults, dimension omission for site-wide totals, pagination, filters), which implies when the tool is appropriate. However, it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as compare_periods, nor does it provide explicit when-not guidance.

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