Search Analytics

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description goes beyond annotations by adding a strong, explicit instruction to base analysis only on returned data, report exact numbers, avoid speculation, and admit insufficient data. This is valuable behavioral context not present in the structured fields.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action. The capability list is dense but relevant, and the IMPORTANT caveat earns its place. It could be slightly more structured, but there is no fluff or repetition.

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 description summarizes capabilities well and the schema covers parameters, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain the response format (e.g., metrics like clicks, impressions, CTR, position). For a data-query tool, this is a meaningful gap, though the 'don't speculate' guidance mitigates some risk.

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%, so the structured schema already documents all 10 parameters. The description's mentions of regex filters, hourly data, and 25K rows reinforce capabilities but add no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description opens with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Query Google Search Console performance data.' It further clarifies scope with dimensions, search types, filters, and row limits. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling analytics tools like compare_periods or diagnose_traffic_drops, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving raw GSC performance data, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over the many sibling analytics tools. No alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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