Show Traffic

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return shape and the lookback-window behavior (last N days), which is not visible in the annotations. It omits data-freshness lag, sampling/row limits, and what happens when there is no traffic, so it is not fully transparent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that puts the returned metrics first and the time scope second, with no filler. It is a sentence fragment without a verb, which is efficient but slightly less scannable than a complete statement.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, the description covers both what it returns and its temporal scope, doing the work an output schema would otherwise do. Missing only edge-case behavior (empty results, data delay) and routing guidance against four other GSC query siblings.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the schema even explains the domain-property nuance for site_url. The description adds only the 'last N days' framing, which the days parameter description already conveys, so baseline 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?

It names the concrete return payload (clicks, impressions, CTR, position) plus a daily trend over the last N days, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It stops short of naming the resource as Search Console traffic or distinguishing itself from siblings like wsp_compare_dates_gsc or wsp_run_report_gsc.

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?

Usage is only implied: the summary-plus-trend framing suggests a quick overview rather than a detailed report, which weakly separates it from the report/comparison siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, and no prerequisite (e.g. needing a site_url from wsp_list_websites_gsc) is stated.

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