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 for behavioral disclosure. It states it returns top queries by clicks but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens with null/default parameters. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 with a single sentence that directly states the core functionality. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficiently front-loaded.

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 the tool has 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, but does have an output schema, the description is incomplete. While the output schema may cover return values, the description fails to address parameter meanings, behavioral context, or usage guidelines that would help an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 6 parameters, the description provides no additional parameter semantics beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain what 'site_url', 'search_type', 'top_n', or other parameters mean in context, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively.

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 verb ('Return') and resource ('top queries from GSC by clicks'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'gsc_search_analytics_raw' or 'gsc_query_page_pairs', which likely serve related GSC query analysis functions.

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 like 'gsc_search_analytics_raw' or 'gsc_query_page_pairs'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or contextual constraints beyond the basic functionality.

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