gsc_search_queries

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the listed metrics clarify what is returned, but the description does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, aggregation behavior, or failure handling. This is acceptable for a simple read query but leaves gaps.

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 description is a single efficient sentence with the core action, source, and metrics front-loaded. There is no redundant wording or filler, so every element earns its place.

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?

Given five parameters, absent schema descriptions, no annotations, and a close sibling like bing_search_queries, this description is too thin. An agent cannot reliably infer valid dimension values, default behavior, or how to specify the GSC property. The presence of an output schema helps, but the overall usage context remains underspecified.

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% and the description explains none of the five parameters. It only implies query-level data through 'search query performance,' leaving site_url, days, row_limit, dimensions, and format without any semantic guidance. The description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 ('Get'), a concrete resource ('search query performance'), and the data source ('Google Search Console'), while naming the returned metrics (clicks, impressions, CTR, position). This makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like bing_search_queries or ga4_organic_performance.

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 explicitly identifies Google Search Console as the data source, giving clear context for when this tool is relevant. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the source-based framing is unambiguous enough to route an agent away from Bing or GA tools.

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