Search Console report

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no contradicting information and implicitly confirms a read-only operation by describing a report generation. It does not elaborate on side effects beyond what the annotations imply, but it does not need to given the annotation coverage. The description adds some detail on filtering and limits, which indirectly informs behavior, but the core transparency is already provided by the annotations.

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 well-organized with a clear opening sentence, a bullet-like list of parameters, and appropriate use of examples. It is concise yet thorough, avoiding unnecessary fluff while delivering all essential information. The structure makes it easy to parse programmatically and for human agents.

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 provides all necessary context: what the tool does, what it returns, parameter details with defaults, and example usage. It even includes a note on the limit maximum. Even without an explicit output schema, the description implies the response structure (clicks, impressions, CTR, position) which is sufficient for most use cases. The description is self-contained and leaves no critical gaps for an agent to call 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?

The description covers all seven parameters: site_url, dimensions, date_range_start/end, search_type, dimension_filter_groups, and limit. Each parameter is explained with defaults, allowed values (e.g., search_type enum, relative date strings), and an example for dimension_filter_groups. This fully compensates for the lack of schema-level descriptions and gives an agent complete understanding of how to construct a request.

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 'Run' and the resource 'Google Search Console search analytics report', and explicitly lists the returned metrics (clicks, impressions, CTR, average position). It also provides use-case context ('diagnosing organic traffic drops, finding keyword opportunities') making the tool's purpose unambiguous even without referencing sibling tools.

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 includes explicit use-case guidance ('Useful for diagnosing organic traffic drops, finding keyword opportunities, and cross-referencing with GA4 and Ads data') which signals when to employ this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it directly to siblings, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately.

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