gsc_growing_queries

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. It mentions gaining clicks/impressions over time but does not define the time window, growth threshold, output format, pagination, or limits. This leaves significant ambiguity about what the agent should expect when invoking the tool.

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 that communicates the core purpose with zero wasted words. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it an example of efficient structure.

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?

Despite the low parameter count, the description omits crucial context such as the precise definition of 'growing', the default time range, and the expected response structure. With no output schema or annotations, the agent cannot infer these details, and the description is incomplete relative to its complexity and the presence of many similar GSC sibling tools.

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 only parameter, site_id, is fully described in the schema as 'Site ID', giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but the high schema coverage justifies the baseline score of 3.

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 identifies the action (get), resource (GSC queries), and a distinctive qualifier ('gaining clicks/impressions over time') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like gsc_declining_queries and gsc_queries. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies its use case—for queries trending upward in clicks or impressions—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like gsc_queries or gsc_opportunities, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. This makes usage guidance only partially explicit.

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