Query 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 disclosing behavioral traits. It states the output metrics and grouping, but it does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention authentication, pagination, rate limits, data freshness, or any side effects. For a query tool with no annotation safety profile, this is a significant gap.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary metrics (clicks, impressions, CTR, position) and then specifies the grouping. There is no filler or redundant content; every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core output metrics and the grouping behavior, which is essential. However, since there is no output schema, it does not specify the response format (e.g., array of objects with metric keys). It also omits any mention of error handling, site_url fallback behavior (though the schema covers it), or limitations such as data freshness or historical range restrictions. For a tool with five parameters and no annotations, this is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by clarifying that dimensions group the data and the date range defines the period, which enriches understanding of the dimensions and start_date/end_date parameters. However, it does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema already includes.

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's function: returning clicks, impressions, CTR, and position for a date range, grouped by dimensions. It is distinct from the sibling tools (list_sites, list_sitemaps, inspect_url), which focus on site management and URL inspection, not analytics. The verb 'Query' and resource 'search analytics' are explicit, and the output metrics are enumerated.

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 labels the tool as 'Core tool for SEO decisions,' which implies it is for SEO analysis, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over the sibling tools or when not to use it. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so the guidance is merely implied rather than explicit.

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