query_gsc_data

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: read-only nature, supported/blocked SQL operations, table schema with columns, and prerequisite data sync requirement. It doesn't mention rate limits, error handling, or result format, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 with zero waste: first states purpose and constraints, second details table structure, third provides prerequisite. Each sentence adds essential information, and the description is appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, constraints, table schema, and prerequisites. It lacks details on return format, pagination, or error cases, but given the context signals, it's reasonably complete for agent usage.

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%, providing a solid baseline. The description adds context about the 'sql' parameter ('Supports any SELECT query') and implies 'siteUrl' relates to GSC property, but doesn't elaborate on 'params' usage. It meets the baseline for high schema coverage without significant added value.

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 ('run a read-only SQL query') and resources ('against a synced GSC property database'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for querying the search_analytics table, unlike setup, sync, or dashboard tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('run a read-only SQL query... Supports any SELECT query') and when not to use ('INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE/DROP/ALTER/CREATE are blocked'). Provides a prerequisite ('Requires synced data — run setup first if needed') and distinguishes from siblings by specifying the table structure.

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