SEO Analytics MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation ('Return') but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or output format details. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the specific use case without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It specifies the tool's purpose but lacks parameter semantics and behavioral context. The output schema may cover return values, but critical usage and input details are missing, making it minimally adequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'query+page combinations' entail, how parameters like 'site_url' or 'search_type' affect results, or the meaning of 'top_n' versus 'max_rows'. This leaves all 6 parameters semantically unclear.

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 action ('Return') and resource ('query+page combinations from GSC'), specifying it's for 'intent/page matching analysis'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'gsc_top_pages' or 'gsc_top_queries' by focusing on combinations rather than individual rankings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'intent/page matching analysis' as a use case but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'gsc_search_analytics_raw' for similar data. This leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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