gsc_queries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a basic function but does not mention data freshness, default time range, what 'top' refers to (e.g., by clicks), or any limitations. Since 'Get' implies a read operation, but without explicit safety cues or behavioral notes, the transparency is insufficient for an agent to understand ramifications.

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 sentence that front-loads the core function: 'Get top GSC queries with performance metrics.' Every word contributes to meaning, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a simple data retrieval tool.

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?

Although the schema documents parameters, the description lacks context about the return payload, default date ranges, or metric definitions. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what performance metrics are returned and any default behavior. The presence of numerous GSC sibling tools without differentiation further limits completeness.

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, with clear text for sort ('Sort by: clicks, impressions, position, ctr'), limit ('Max results (default 50)'), and site_id ('Site ID'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter explanation fully.

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 'Get top GSC queries with performance metrics' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('GSC queries'), clearly indicating a query-level retrieval tool. It is reasonably distinct from sibling tools like gsc_growing_queries or gsc_declining_queries, though it does not explicitly differentiate from them. The mention of 'top' and 'performance metrics' conveys the core purpose effectively.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many GSC-related siblings such as gsc_summary, gsc_growing_queries, or gsc_declining_queries. The description only states what it does, offering no preferred contexts, exclusions, or alternative recommendations. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name and context.

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