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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only aggregate query and lists result metrics, but it does not mention the practical site_url requirement, date-range defaults, dimension compatibility, row limits, or output shape. These are material behavioral details absent from the description.

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 a single sentence with no filler, and the main operation is front-loaded. It is concise while still conveying the core purpose and key output metrics.

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 fairly simple query tool with complete schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate for basic invocation, especially because defaults and parameter options are already in the schema. However, there is no output schema, no usage context versus siblings, and the logically required site_url is not highlighted. This is a thin definition for a tool with six parameters and competing sibling tools.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 even with no parameter details in the description. The description adds little beyond the schema: 'by dimension' rehashes the dimensions parameter, and the metrics list describes output rather than parameter mechanics. No additional parameter semantics are supplied.

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 operation ('Query Search Analytics data') and names the principal resource and metrics returned (clicks, impressions, CTR, position). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like get_top_queries or get_top_pages, which are obvious alternatives for the same data at different granularities.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer search_analytics over get_top_queries or get_top_pages, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The phrase 'by dimension' only implies a general grouping use case. This leaves tool selection to inference.

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