gsc_top_queries

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the output metrics, omitting crucial details like aggregation behavior (daily vs. total), row limits, or how the siteUrl parameter affects results. No mention of response structure or error behaviors.

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 single sentence is concise and free of filler, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks a structure that front-loads key decision points (like defaults or required parameters), making it concise but not useful.

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 lack of an output schema and the presence of many sibling tools, this description is incomplete. It doesn't specify what fields are returned (e.g., CTR, position), how rowLimit interacts with pagination, or how dates are applied. An agent would need to guess or manually inspect the schema to use it correctly.

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?

The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. Schema coverage is 75% (missing rowLimit description), and the description doesn't compensate by explaining that rowLimit controls the number of queries or that siteUrl can be a domain property. It simply restates the tool's purpose without parameter context.

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 identifies the resource (GSC queries) and the key metrics (clicks/impressions), which is specific enough to understand the tool's basic function. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like gsc_search_analytics or gsc_top_pages, and the 'clicks/impressions' phrasing is ambiguous about whether both are returned or one is chosen.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like gsc_search_analytics or gsc_top_pages, leaving an agent unable to choose correctly.

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