gsc_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is for retrieving performance data and mentions the max row limit (25000) as a constraint. However, it does not describe other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no data is returned. It also doesn't specify that it's a read-only operation, which is somewhat implied by 'performance report' but not explicit.

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 well-structured with a brief opening sentence followed by a clear parameter list. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter details into prose, but the bullet format is effective for readability.

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 that the tool has 5 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, required and optional parameters, and typical use. It doesn't explain return values, but an output schema exists which can handle that. The only gap is the lack of behavioral details like rate limits, but overall it is fairly complete.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains site_url format (including sc-domain:example.com), date format (YYYY-MM-DD), dimensions as comma-separated list with allowed values, and default and maximum for row_limit. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 this tool fetches Search Console performance report with top queries and pages, including metrics. It specifies the resource (Search Console performance report) and verb (query), which distinguishes it from siblings like gsc_audit or gsc_performance_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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to get performance data with specific dimensions and metrics). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings. However, the parameter list gives enough guidance for usage without requiring an exclusion note.

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