gsc_get_data_freshness

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the mechanism ('by querying recent daily rows'), which implies iterative scanning and ties directly to lookbackDays. But it doesn't disclose what happens when no data exists in the window, the number of API calls implied, or what the return value looks like.

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?

One clean 15-word sentence with zero redundancy; the core purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized but slightly under-specified — there was room to add sibling differentiation or usage guidance without becoming verbose.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and edge cases. It does neither: an agent doesn't know what result to expect (a single date? a structured object?), what happens when no data is found within lookbackDays, or which sibling covers the adjacent freshness concept (indexation vs. search analytics data).

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 67%, so the schema already documents siteUrl and lookbackDays adequately, and searchType's enum is self-explanatory. The description's 'recent daily rows' phrasing adds modest context to lookbackDays as a scan window but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 and resource: 'Detect the most recent date with Search Analytics data'. This distinguishes it from siblings like gsc_query_search_analytics (general data querying) and gsc_monitor_indexation_freshness (indexation freshness, not data availability). However, it doesn't explicitly name or contrast those alternatives the way the strongest definitions do.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't say to use gsc_query_search_analytics for actual data retrieval, gsc_monitor_indexation_freshness for indexation monitoring, or how this freshness check fits into a workflow. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the name and purpose statement.

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