gsc_top_queries

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 discloses only that the tool returns top queries and summary statistics, but says nothing about aggregation, sorting, pagination, data limits, quota usage, or authentication requirements.

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 with no filler. It is front-loaded and readable, though the phrase 'summary statistics' is vague and could have been replaced with a more specific behavior.

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 tool has nested parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many similar siblings. The description is too thin to fully guide an agent on constructing correct inputs or interpreting results, especially around filters, date ranges, and limits.

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 only 25%, and the description adds little parameter-level meaning. It implies the presence of top N queries but does not explain how limit, filters, or dateRange affect the results, nor does it describe the nested filter structure.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it gets top search queries for a site and includes summary statistics. It is clear enough on its own, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the very similar sibling gsc_query_performance, so it stops short of a 5.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like gsc_query_performance or gsc_top_pages. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context from the name and description.

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