gsc_portfolio

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds meaningful behavioral details: results are ranked worst first, each row compares current vs. previous period, and health thresholds are explicitly defined (critical below -30% clicks, warning below -15%). This is useful behavior that the annotations do not convey.

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 compact, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose, and every sentence adds useful information. It avoids restating schema fields or repeating annotation hints, containing only the essential decision-making context an agent needs.

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?

For a portfolio overview tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the key context: scope (all accessible properties), ranking, period comparison, health thresholds, and when to use it. It does not explain every parameter in prose, but the schema already covers most of those. Minor gaps like the meaning of 'accessible' or the effect of no_cache are understandable given the availability of schema and output schema.

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 80%, and the parameter descriptions already handle days, limit, date_to, and response_format. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. The health-flag thresholds describe output behavior, not parameter meaning, so 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 that the tool returns every accessible property at a glance, ranked worst first, with one row per property and a health flag. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gsc_site_details or gsc_query, which operate on individual properties or specific metrics, by establishing its role as a portfolio-level overview.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Use it to decide which property to look at before running anything else.' This tells the agent that this should be the first triage step. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'before running anything else' guidance makes the intended placement in a workflow clear.

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