run_gsc_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds no further behavioral context such as rate limits or quota; it primarily explains parameters. No contradiction with 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?

Description is well-structured with the main purpose first, followed by parameter details in a readable format. Slightly verbose but no unnecessary repetition; could be tightened into a list but overall effective.

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's complexity (7 parameters, optional output schema), the description is complete. It covers all parameters, mentions return metrics, and fits within the sibling tool context. No obvious gaps.

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 has 0% coverage, so description fully compensates by explaining all 7 parameters: site_url with example, dimensions with allowed values, date formats, search_type options, dimension_filter_groups with example JSON, and limit with default/max. Very thorough.

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 clearly states it runs a Google Search Console search analytics report, listing specific metrics. It distinguishes itself from sibling reporting tools like run_ga4_report and run_gaql by explicitly mentioning GSC and cross-referencing capabilities.

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?

Provides specific use cases: diagnosing organic traffic drops, finding keyword opportunities, and cross-referencing with GA4 and Ads data. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the use cases guide appropriate usage.

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