gold_gsc_insights

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is paid/Pro only and fails closed without GSC_OAUTH_JSON. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the output looks like, or any side effects, so transparency remains incomplete.

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 useful information is compact, but the description contains unexplained and likely unhelpful text like 'Steal: OpenGSC 16 + BigQuery 43' and 'PAID ONLY PRO $29'. These phrases do not help an AI agent call the tool correctly and should be removed or clarified.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the agent can expect back from the tool. It covers basic purpose, authentication, and optional SQL, but omits return format, behavior when bigquery_sql is absent, and any interaction between days and the SQL path. This is incomplete for a tool with no annotations and no output 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 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description mostly restates what the schema says, such as 'days 28' and BigQuery SQL over the GSC export. Since the schema already carries the semantic weight, a 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?

The description clearly states the core function: retrieving GSC Search Analytics over a 28-day lookback with optional BigQuery SQL against a GSC export. This separates it from siblings like gold_gsc_verify and gold_crawl_audit. However, the cryptic 'Steal: OpenGSC 16 + BigQuery 43' text and 'PAID ONLY PRO $29' add noise that weakens an otherwise clear purpose.

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 implies when to use the tool: when GSC Search Analytics insights are needed, optionally with custom SQL over a GSC export. It also provides a real prerequisite by stating it fails closed without GSC_OAUTH_JSON. But it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, which matters given the large sibling set.

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