Query Search Analytics Tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered structurally. The description adds the metric list, but that duplicates the output schema, and it says nothing about quota/rate limits, data-freshness lag tied to data_state, or pagination behavior beyond the schema defaults.

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence carries information about what is queried and what comes back.

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?

With a fully-documented 10-parameter schema, an existing output schema, and readOnlyHint annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to select the tool. It stops short of explaining the more intricate knobs (aggregation_type interactions, dimension_filter_groups shape), but those are schema-documented.

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 every parameter is already documented individually. The description adds no syntax, default, or interaction guidance (e.g. how dimension_filter_groups relates to dimensions), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('query search traffic data') and enumerates the metrics returned (clicks, impressions, CTR, average position). This is clearly distinct from the sibling site/sitemap management tools, though the description never explicitly distinguishes itself from them.

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?

'Use this to analyze search performance for specific pages, queries, countries, devices, or date ranges' is usage context, but it largely restates what the dimensions parameter does. There are no prerequisites (site verification, permission scope) and no explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives.

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