search_analytics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a read-style query and the metrics returned, without mentioning pagination, default row limits, data-state lag, output ordering behavior, or other caveats beyond the single word 'ranked'.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that names the action, resource, and return metrics with no redundant words or filler. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys.

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 rich input schema and output schema cover the mechanics of invocation well, and the core purpose is clear. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance amid many sibling analytics tools, the definition lacks routing and behavioral context, leaving it adequate but not fully complete.

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%, with detailed documentation for all 11 parameters, including defaults, enums, patterns, and constraints. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Query'), a specific resource ('Google Search Console search analytics'), and the returned metrics ('ranked clicks, impressions, CTR, and position'). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_opportunities or compare_search_periods, so it falls short of a 5.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, preferred contexts, or how this tool relates to siblings such as ctr_gaps or search_opportunities, leaving an agent to infer the intended use case.

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