Query search performance

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

the readOnlyHint annotation establishes that this is a safe read operation, so the description doesn't need to restate that. The description adds valuable behavioral context by naming the exact return metrics, which is especially important given the absence of an output schema. It doesn't cover details like pagination or rate limits, but the schema already provides rowLimit and date handling.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads exactly what the tool returns and mentions the key customizability. No filler or redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 combination of schema (full parameter documentation), annotation (safe read), and description (returned metrics) covers almost everything an agent needs to call the tool correctly. The only meaningful gap is the lack of explicit usage guidance, but the sibling tool set is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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 100%, with each of the six parameters already documented (defaults, formats, enums, required field). The description only says 'dimensions you choose', which adds no information beyond what the schema's dimensions parameter already states, so it doesn't lift the score above the 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Returns'), names the exact resource ('Performance report'), and lists the concrete metrics (clicks, impressions, CTR, average position) plus the key option (dimensions). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_properties, inspect_url, and list_sitemaps, which target different concerns.

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 tool's purpose of querying search performance is clear from the title and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives or any stated exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicitly framed, leaving the agent to infer it is the right tool for search analytics.

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