gsc_query_search_analytics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries most of the burden. It discloses that the tool returns analytics data, implying a read-only query operation, but it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or potential large-response implications. This is adequate but minimal.

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 compact: two sentences, with the primary purpose and returned data front-loaded. The pointer to gsc:// resources is efficient and avoids repeating schema content. A bit more behavioral context could be added without making it bloated, but the current structure is strong.

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 the tool's complexity (14 parameters, nested objects, enums, no output schema), the description provides a reasonable high-level overview and links to compatibility references. However, it lacks usage guidance and does not convey how outputs are structured or paginated. The schema carries substantial detail, so this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

With schema description coverage at 50%, the description compensates partly by listing the core metrics and dimensions and directing users to gsc://metrics, gsc://dimensions, gsc://filters, and gsc://compatibility for field-level details. It does not deeply explain parameter interactions, but the schema covers several important parameters such as dataState, aggregationType, and autoPaginate.

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 clearly states the specific verb 'Query' and the resource 'Google Search Console Search Analytics', and enumerates the returned metrics and dimensions. It is obvious what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate itself, relying instead on the generic 'Search Analytics' scope.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus sibling tools like gsc_compare_search_types or gsc_analyze_search_appearance_trends. The pointer to gsc://metrics, gsc://dimensions, and gsc://compatibility tells agents where to find field rules, but not which tool to choose for a given analysis scenario.

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