gsc_performance_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as a 'summary' (read operation) but does not disclose any side effects, API rate limits, or data freshness. It also does not explain that the tool returns aggregate data only, not per-query breakdowns.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. Including the Args block adds clarity for parameters. Minor redundancy: 'avg CTR' repeats 'CTR' in the summary. Still efficient.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown) but the description does not reference what the returned data looks like or any pagination. For a summary tool with 3 required params, the description covers the main purpose but lacks behavioral details like if it returns a single row or array.

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 no description coverage (0%) so the description must compensate. It provides examples for site_url (including sc-domain format) and date format hints (YYYY-MM-DD) which adds value beyond schema. However, it does not explain constraints like maximum date range or valid patterns, so 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 'Summary of site performance' and enumerates the specific metrics returned (clicks, impressions, CTR, position). This distinguishes it from siblings like gsc_query (query-level data) or gsc_site_details (site-level settings), making purpose very clear.

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 a clear high-level purpose but does not explicitly state when to use this versus other tools like gsc_query or gsc_site_details. It implies usage for aggregated performance overview, but lacks direct comparison or exclusions.

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