Search Console: performance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the data has a ~2-3 day lag, which an agent needs to avoid misinterpreting recent-date results as empty.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the freshness caveat follows. Nothing is wasted, though there is no structural cue (e.g. parameter groupings) for such a wide 8-param tool.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned metrics (clicks, impressions, CTR, position), partially covering the return shape. However, for an 8-parameter query tool it omits any mention of filtering, row limits, or date-range selection, leaving those entirely to the schema.

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 63%, so the schema already documents most parameters (days, endDate, filters, siteUrl, startDate). The description adds only that results are 'grouped by the chosen dimensions' and that CTR is on a 0-1 scale, which is metric semantics rather than extra parameter meaning. 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?

States a specific verb+resource: returns clicks, impressions, CTR and average position from Google Search Console, grouped by the chosen dimensions. An agent can tell it apart from siblings like gsc_inspect_url or gsc_list_sites, though it does not explicitly name any sibling to differentiate from gsc_compare_periods.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. gsc_compare_periods for period comparisons, gsc_striking_distance for opportunity queries), and no prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the tool name and its generic metric output.

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