search_queries

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, open-world profile, so the description rightly focuses on behavior. It discloses the non-obvious default window (last `days` days ending three days ago), what compare=true computes, allowed filter values, and that the result echoes the filters used — genuinely useful beyond the annotations.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: metrics first, then date semantics, then compare, then filters. Every sentence carries information; the only cost is that it reads as a single run-on paragraph rather than separated concerns.

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?

For a 10-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description covers metrics, dimensions, date logic, comparison, and three of the filter parameters well. Missing coverage of `limit` and `site` keeps it from being fully complete.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and does most of it: exact date format, the days fallback rule, the compare semantics, country as three-letter ISO, and enumerated device/search_type values (default 'web'). It leaves `site` and `limit` (default 25) unexplained, which is the main gap.

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?

Names a specific resource (Search Console clicks, impressions, CTR, average position) and the two dimensions it can be grouped by, which implicitly separates it from page_queries. It stops short of naming the sibling, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied through the 'by query or page' framing and the note that Discover and Google News have page rows only, which steers an agent toward `by=page` for those search types. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no reference to page_queries or other siblings.

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