Query Google Search Console

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: it names the auth mechanism (OAuth read-only) and the required connect step, and warns that AI feature labels are never inferred from generic search rows, which sets expectations about what results will and will not contain. It stops short of describing row-count/limit behavior or data freshness/lag.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the prerequisite and the data-quality caveat; nothing is redundant. The multi-surface enumeration is slightly listy but each item earns its place by mapping to searchType values.

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?

With seven parameters, no output schema, and sparse schema descriptions, the description should carry more weight. It covers auth and one behavioral caveat but leaves an agent unable to reason about result shape, how dimensions combine, what aggregationType changes, or how rowLimit interacts with the response.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate for six undocumented parameters, and it largely doesn't. It implicitly covers searchType by naming the six surfaces, but dimensions, aggregationType, rowLimit, and the start/end date semantics (no timezone, no freshness, no range limits) are left unexplained in both schema and description.

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 (query) and resource (the user's authorized Google Search Console property) and enumerates the search surfaces it covers (web, image, video, news, Discover, Google News), so the agent knows the shape of the returned data. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as edgeo_search_console_sites or edgeo_summarize_search_console, which leaves ambiguity about which Search Console entry point to pick.

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 'Requires `edgeo-mcp search-console connect`' is useful, and the mention of OAuth read-only access frames the operating context. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this raw-rows query over edgeo_summarize_search_console or edgeo_search_console_sites, and no exclusions are stated.

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