google-search-console-mcp

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

Annotations already establish the operation is read-only and safe. The description adds context that the output is a percentage breakdown of traffic, but does not disclose rate limits, pagination behavior, or the specific structure of the analysis results.

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 consists of two efficient sentences with no redundancy, placing the core action first and the output second. It could potentially be consolidated into one sentence without loss of meaning, but remains appropriately sized.

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 presence of comprehensive input annotations and a complete input schema, the description adequately covers the tool's intent. However, without an output schema, it could better describe the return value structure (e.g., whether it returns a ratio, percentage object, or time-series data).

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the parameters are fully documented in the structured schema. The description mentions 'brand searches' which loosely references the brandTerms parameter, but adds no semantic clarification beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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 tool analyzes 'branded vs non-branded search queries' and calculates traffic percentages, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool query_search_analytics, which handles general search analytics.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like query_search_analytics, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., that brandTerms must be provided) or scenarios where this analysis is inappropriate.

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