gsc_top_queries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain the substring-restriction behavior of page_filter, which is useful, but it does not state that this is a read-only operation, what happens if site_url is omitted, or how defaults like days=28 behave. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral context is expected.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact parameter list. Every line earns its place, and the page_filter entry even embeds a motivating use case without adding fluff.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The parameter documentation is solid, but the description omits whether site_url is effectively required, what the defaults imply for the date window, and any safety note about this being a read-only reporting call. An agent could call it, but with less confidence than the sibling landscape would allow.

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 0%, and the description compensates fully by explaining all six parameters: site_url as 'property', the date-window trio, limit as 'how many queries', and page_filter as an optional URL substring filter. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema names and types.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Top search queries by clicks.' This clearly identifies what the tool returns and the metric it ranks by. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the contrast with gsc_top_pages and gsc_queries_for_page is implicit in the phrase 'top search queries' plus the page_filter argument.

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 page_filter explanation gives a concrete use case ('ask which queries drive a particular section of the site'), which implies when the filter is valuable. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like gsc_search_analytics or gsc_queries_for_page, and no exclusions are stated.

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