SEO Analytics MCP

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. While it mentions what data is returned (clicks, impressions, CTR, position), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether there are rate limits, or how the 'top pages' are determined (e.g., by clicks, impressions, or another metric).

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains no wasted words or redundant information.

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 that there's an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values in the description) but no annotations and 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It adequately states what the tool does at a high level but fails to provide crucial context about parameters, usage scenarios, and behavioral characteristics that would help an agent use it effectively.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, meaning none of the 6 parameters have explanations in the schema. The description provides no information about any parameters - it doesn't mention site_url, date ranges, search_type, top_n, or max_rows. For a tool with 6 undocumented parameters, this represents a significant gap in parameter understanding.

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 tool's purpose: 'Return top pages from GSC with clicks, impressions, CTR, and position.' It specifies the action (return), resource (top pages from GSC), and key metrics included. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gsc_search_analytics_raw' or 'gsc_top_queries', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple GSC-related sibling tools available (gsc_list_sites, gsc_query_page_pairs, gsc_search_analytics_raw, gsc_top_queries), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it's the appropriate choice.

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