gsc validate query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'before executing it'; it does not describe output behavior such as returning a boolean or raising errors, though an output schema exists. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The key verb and object appear immediately, and every word contributes to the meaning. It is appropriately minimal for such a focused validation tool.

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?

For a tool with a rich annotation set, an output schema, and a 100% parameter coverage, the description is minimally adequate: it communicates the intent of preflight validation. However, it leaves ambiguity about the meaning of 'metric' given the schema lacks it, and does not state what kind of result the agent should expect (e.g., success/failure, detailed errors) beyond what the output schema may convey.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds only the notion of a 'combination' to validate, which is a small semantic contribution. It does not explain valid combinations, inter-parameter constraints, or how dateRange interacts with dimensions/searchType.

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 ('Validate') and a specific resource ('Search Console metric/dimension/search type combination'), which differentiates it from query/retrieval siblings like gsc_query_search_analytics. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, and the mention of 'metric' is slightly mismatched with the schema, which contains no metric parameter.

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 phrase 'before executing it' implies the tool is a preflight check for a future query, giving some usage context. But it does not state when not to use it, what should be done if validation fails, or how it relates to specific sibling tools like gsc_query_search_analytics or gsc_compare_search_types.

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