gsc_alerts

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds valuable detail about the comparison logic and the types of movements detected (lost positions, collapsed CTR, dropped/vanished pages). It explains that only movements past alerting rules are returned, which is behavior beyond the schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences long and front-loads the purpose with a question-like hook. The second sentence explains mechanics efficiently. The first sentence is a bit vague, but overall it is compact and free of fluff.

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 covers the core algorithm and output filtering, and an output schema exists so return format is not required here. It does not mention usage context or alternatives, which is a minor completeness gap for a complex alerting tool, but it is sufficient for basic invocation.

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 86%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no new meaning about parameter format or semantics; it only mentions window_days implicitly via the comparison logic. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 compares two windows and returns only movements that pass alerting rules, which is a specific and concrete purpose. It mentions both queries and pages, distinguishing it from tools focused only on one. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like gsc_traffic_drops or gsc_compare_periods, leaving some ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or recommended contexts beyond a vague 'today' cue. This is a gap, especially given the large set of sibling tools.

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