google-search-console-mcp

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive traits. The description adds valuable return-value context ('daily clicks, impressions, and position changes') indicating granularity and data structure, but doesn't address rate limits, pagination, or auth requirements beyond the account parameter.

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?

Two well-structured sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action ('Get the performance trend...'), followed by specific return value details. Every word earns its place.

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 100% schema coverage and comprehensive annotations, the description is adequate. It partially compensates for the missing output schema by specifying the returned metrics (clicks, impressions, position changes), though it could note if the data is aggregated or raw.

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 baseline is met. The description implies the temporal scope ('over time') aligning with date parameters, but doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions or constraints (e.g., date range limits) beyond the schema definitions.

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 it retrieves 'performance trend of a specific keyword over time' with specific metrics (clicks, impressions, position changes). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_top_pages' by emphasizing single-keyword time-series analysis, though it could explicitly contrast with 'query_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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'query_search_analytics' or 'compare_performance'. The agent must infer from the name and parameters that this is specifically for longitudinal single-keyword tracking.

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