gsc_daily_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not clarify return format, time range behavior, pagination, or any required permissions. The term 'daily' hints at aggregation granularity but lacks detail.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys resource, granularity, and purpose efficiently.

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?

The tool has only one parameter and no output schema, so the description is the primary source of return-value context. It states the general output ('daily GSC performance metrics') but omits specifics like metric names, date ranges, or response format. This is adequate but not fully complete for a data-fetching tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for site_id, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further meaning about site_id beyond identifying the site context, but the schema description is sufficient for a single simple parameter.

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 ('Get'), a clear resource ('daily GSC performance metrics'), and an explicit use case ('for sparklines and trends'). This distinguishes it from similar sibling tools like gsc_summary and gsc_queries by emphasizing daily granularity and chart/trend usage.

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 phrase 'for sparklines and trends' implies a use case, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gsc_summary or gsc_queries. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, leaving selection ambiguous.

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