search_analytics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does most of it: it discloses default date window, valid enum values, the 1..25000 row_limit bound, and — most valuable — the pagination contract ('more_may_exist: true when rows == row_limit, so paginate with start_row'). It omits auth/permission requirements and any quota or rate-limit behavior.

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 purpose leads, parameter semantics follow in a compact labeled list, and the return/pagination contract closes it out. Given nine parameters and a zero-description schema, no sentence is filler and nothing important is buried.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still usefully supplements it with the more_may_exist/start_row pagination rule, which is the piece an agent most needs to iterate correctly. Combined with full parameter documentation, nothing essential for calling this complex tool is missing.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents site_url provenance, date formats and defaults, allowed dimension values, the full filter object shape and operator list, search_type and data_state enumerations, and row_limit/start_row semantics. Nearly every parameter gains meaning absent from the schema.

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 and resource ('Query search analytics') plus the scope constraint ('for one property'), which immediately separates it from the sibling inventory tools. It also names list_sites as the source of site_url, giving an agent a concrete anchor for what this tool operates on.

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 prerequisite for the required parameter is stated ('site_url: property from list_sites'), which is useful routing guidance, and defaults for date range and data_state are given. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, and the sibling inspect_url is never contrasted with this tool.

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