gsc_query_page_matrix

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only states a purpose. It does not mention return format (e.g., rows containing query, page, impressions, clicks), whether results are aggregated, how rowLimit works, or any permissions/rate-limit concerns. The word 'matrix' suggests a cross-tabulation, but that's not explicit. The agent is left blind to what happens at runtime.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core resource and purpose. However, it is so short that it forfeits the opportunity to add necessary context, so it earns a 4 only for economy, not informativeness.

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?

This is a moderately complex tool (matrix output, 4 parameters) with no output schema and no annotation support. The description fails to specify the output shape, pagination, or differentiation from similar tools. An agent cannot confidently call this tool based on the given definition alone; it would likely need to probe with a test call.

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 75% (rowLimit lacks a description). The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The schema itself supplies basic hints (date format, GSC property, default rowLimit). Since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies; the description neither enhances nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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 identifies a specific resource (GSC query/page matrix) and a purpose (finding page-level keyword opportunities), but it leaves the exact nature of the matrix vague. It does not say what rows or columns the matrix contains, how it aggregates data, or what distinguishes it from gsc_search_analytics, gsc_top_queries, or gsc_top_pages. It's more than a tautology but lacks concrete detail to separate it from siblings.

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 usage guidance is provided. There is no indication of when to prefer this tool over the several very similar GSC analytics siblings, no prerequisites (e.g., siteUrl being required despite not being marked required), and no note about result size or filtering. An agent must infer its use from the tool name and one-line description, which is insufficient.

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