Search Console: fast auf Seite eins

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the scoring methodology (estimated additional clicks assuming a 10% CTR) and the impression/position gating, which tells the agent how rows are ranked and why some data is absent.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is found, then the ranking basis, then the use case — no filler. Minor imprecision in calling the results 'Suchanfragen' before clarifying they are query+page combinations, but the structure is efficient overall.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter tool with fully documented schema, the description covers purpose, filtering logic, ranking, and use case. With no output schema, it could say a bit more about the shape of returned rows (which columns the agent will see), which is the only real remaining gap.

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 six parameters including defaults and bounds. The description only restates the band (8–20) and the impression threshold conceptually; it adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: it finds query+page combinations in a defined striking-distance band (positions 8–20) with sufficient impressions, and it discloses the sort order (estimated extra clicks at 10% CTR). The query+page granularity and the position band distinguish it from the broader sibling gsc_suchanfragen without needing to name it.

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?

Gives a concrete decision scenario — 'Ideal, um zu entscheiden, welche Seiten zuerst überarbeitet werden' — which tells the agent when this output is the right input for prioritization. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g. when to use gsc_suchanfragen instead), so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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