Search Console Dashboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it shows an 'interactive dashboard' (output format), requires 'synced data' (prerequisite state), and has dependencies on other tools ('run setup first if needed'). It doesn't mention error conditions or performance characteristics, but covers essential operational context.

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 perfectly structured and concise: first sentence states purpose, second enumerates dashboard components, third provides usage guidance, fourth states prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and critical information is front-loaded.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the dashboard's interactive nature and components. It covers prerequisites and tool relationships adequately. The main gap is lack of output format details - while it mentions 'interactive dashboard', it doesn't describe the return structure or data format.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it mentions 'siteUrl from get_overview results' which provides sourcing context, but doesn't add significant meaning about parameter usage or interactions beyond what's in the schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('drill into', 'shows') and resources ('a single property', 'interactive dashboard'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying this is for detailed property-level analysis rather than overview or list operations, and mentions specific dashboard components like hero metrics and trend charts.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Drill into a single property' indicates it's for detailed analysis after broader overviews. It specifies prerequisites: 'Use the siteUrl from get_overview results' and 'Requires synced data — run setup first if needed', clearly differentiating from setup and overview tools.

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