gsc_validate_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only restates the validate action. It does not disclose what the tool returns on valid/invalid combinations, whether it executes a real Search Console request, or how errors are surfaced.

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 sentence with no filler and front-loads the action. It is concise, though the brevity contributes to the lack of behavioral and parameter detail.

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?

A validation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested dateRange parameter needs more context to be called correctly. The description omits validation criteria, expected outcome, and date format, so an agent cannot confidently predict the tool's behavior.

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 adds no detail about the dateRange structure/format, and it references 'metric' even though no metric property exists in the schema; only dimensions and searchType are minimally self-explanatory via the schema.

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 ('Validate') and identifies the resource (Search Console metric/dimension/search type combination), which distinguishes it from the querying and sitemap sibling tools. However, 'metric' is mentioned even though the input schema contains no metric parameter, so the scope is slightly imprecise.

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?

'Before executing it' implies the tool is a pre-flight check, giving some usage context. It does not name the specific sibling tool(s) it should precede, such as gsc_query_search_analytics, nor does it state when not to use validation.

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