get_performance_overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful detail that site_url must match an exact property from list_properties, clarifies how domain properties work, and notes the default days value. However, it omits broader behavioral traits such as read-only status, potential rate limits, or any error conditions.

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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a concise Args list. Every sentence adds meaningful context without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool's simplicity, two parameters, and existence of an output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the key domain-specific nuances (property formats, domain coverage) that structured fields cannot. It loses a point for not addressing edge cases like invalid properties or parameter interactions, but overall it is complete enough for effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains both parameters: site_url is described as an exact GSC property URL with concrete examples and domain-property caveats, while days is explained as a look-back period with a default. This significantly enriches the minimal schema.

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 retrieves a performance overview for a specific property, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like get_search_analytics or get_advanced_search_analytics, which could also be considered performance-related.

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 usage context regarding site_url format and domain property behavior, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements, leaving the agent without criteria for selection.

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