get_search_analytics

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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent/open-world safety, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: env-var default site, automatic domain matching, days ignored when start_date is supplied, the 25,000 row cap, the cheap summary_only path, AND-combined filter semantics, and the all-vs-final data_state distinction. This is more behavioral context than most definitions provide.

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?

Front-loaded with the returned metrics, then a compact args block with no filler. Size is proportionate to 11 undocumented parameters, and every line conveys actionable information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers defaults, formats, alternatives, and data-state caveats for a complex 11-parameter analytics tool. An agent can invoke it correctly from this text alone.

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%, so the description must carry all 11 parameters – and it does: each one gets a meaning, default, accepted values, and in several cases a format example (YYYY-MM-DD, dimensions list, filter object). The schema alone would be nearly unusable without this text.

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 opening line states exactly what is returned – top queries/pages/countries/devices/dates with clicks, impressions, CTR and position – which is a specific resource and metric set. It does not use an explicit verb and only partially distinguishes itself from siblings (advanced/export are named only inside the row_limit note), so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Row_limit guidance explicitly routes large pulls to get_advanced_search_analytics or export_search_analytics, and summary_only is flagged as the cheapest call. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance relative to get_performance_overview or compare_search_periods, but the alternatives for scale are clearly stated.

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