Question-shaped queries

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, not open-world), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: detection runs server-side inside Search Console, AI traffic is not labeled, these are only candidates, and results default to impressions sorting because question queries often get no click. Return format/pagination behavior is left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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?

Four dense sentences with the core definition front-loaded, followed by mechanism, caveat, and default-sort rationale. No filler, though the parenthetical about AI features is slightly more than needed.

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 13 parameters, no output schema, and one required param, the description supplies the conceptual model (question-shaped candidates, server-side detection, AI-traffic caveat) that structured fields cannot convey. What is missing is explicit routing against the generic 'query' and 'opportunities' siblings.

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 92%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter. The description only adds context for two of them (language relates to the question-prefix list, sort defaults to impressions), so it does not meaningfully exceed the structured baseline.

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 resource (Google searches phrased as questions that showed this site) and explains how it is produced (Search Console regex filters built from question-prefix lists in 10 languages plus a minimum length). It implicitly separates itself from the generic 'query' sibling by describing a specialized subset, but never names the generic query tool, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Use is implied through the framing 'raw material for FAQ pages and content that answers what people actually ask' and the note about AI features, so an agent can guess the intent. However, no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance and no alternative sibling (query, opportunities) is named as the comparison point.

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