gsc_cluster_queries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of explaining behavior. It reveals the clustering dimensions, but it does not state the output format, whether data is fetched live from Search Console, or any side effects / limits. For an unannotated tool this is a significant gap.

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 information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, then adds the key distinguishing details about token-and-intent-based clustering.

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 9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It omits return structure, defaults behavior, and usage context, so an agent cannot fully predict the tool's output or decide when to invoke it with confidence.

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 only 33%, and the description does not compensate. It indirectly relates to brandTerms and categoryRules via 'tokens' and 'intent signals', but it leaves limit, maxClusters, topQueriesPerCluster, datePreset, and searchType semantics to inference from names and enums.

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 ('Cluster') and resource ('Search Console queries') and adds the method ('simple tokens and intent signals: brand/non-brand, question, category, topic tokens'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that query raw analytics, validate queries, or detect losses/cannibalization.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gsc_query_search_analytics or gsc_validate_query. There is no mention of preferred contexts, exclusions, or sibling trade-offs, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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