gsc_search_analytics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the returned metrics (clicks, impressions, CTR, position), but does not mention that this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, pagination behavior, or how filter parameters interact (e.g., all three filter fields must be used together). This is a significant gap for a data-querying tool.

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 two sentences long, with the primary action and resource in the first sentence and output metrics in the second. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant information.

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 complexity (9 parameters, flexible dimensions, filter operators) and the absence of an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain how to construct valid filter combinations, the meaning of the returned metrics beyond their names, or how row limits apply. The description would be incomplete for an agent trying to use the tool correctly without additional context.

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% with descriptions for all nine parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'flexible dimensions and filters' but does not elaborate on parameter relationships or usage patterns, such as the need to specify filterDimension, filterOperator, and filterExpression together.

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 queries Google Search Console search analytics data, with a specific verb ('Query') and resource. It mentions flexibility in dimensions and filters, and lists returned metrics. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like gsc_top_queries or gsc_top_pages, which are more specialized.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools like gsc_top_queries and gsc_top_pages exist, but the description does not mention them or state that this tool is for custom flexible queries. Usage context is only implied by 'flexible dimensions and filters.'

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