Summarize supplied Search Console rows

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

Annotations already establish read-only and closed-world behavior, and the description usefully adds that no Google connection is made and no AI feature is inferred from unlabeled data. It also discloses that position is impression-weighted, though it does not discuss validation limits or edge cases.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the key limitation. No wasted wording.

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?

The description explains the broad input and output metrics, but with no output schema and a complex nested rows array, it leaves return shape and row-field semantics under-specified. It is adequate for tool selection but not fully complete for correct invocation.

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 must carry more of the parameter burden. It adds useful semantics by indicating grouping by provided feature label and impression-weighted average position, but it does not explain the row structure, required fields, or behavior when feature labels are absent.

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 states a specific verb and resource: summarize user-supplied Search Console rows. It also distinguishes the tool from live-query siblings by saying it does not connect to Google and does not infer unlabeled AI features.

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?

It clearly implies use when rows are already supplied and explicitly rules out live Google connection or inference from unlabeled data. It does not name specific sibling alternatives such as edgeo_import_search_console_csv or edgeo_search_console_query, so it falls short of fully explicit routing.

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