google-search-console-mcp

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds context by mapping technical enum values to user-friendly categories (e.g., 'Rich Results' covers multiple schema enums). However, it fails to describe what the analytics contain (clicks, impressions, CTR?), pagination behavior, or date range constraints given the lack of output schema.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Query analytics'), immediately qualified by the specific filter dimension. Every word serves a purpose; no redundancy or filler content despite being minimal.

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 100% schema coverage and annotations providing safety context, the description adequately covers the input side. However, given no output schema exists, the description should explain what analytics/metrics are returned (e.g., clicks, impressions, position) and their format, which it omits.

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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds valuable semantic mapping between user-friendly terms ('AMP', 'Rich Results', 'Video') and the technical enum values in the schema. This helps the agent understand the domain meaning of the searchAppearance parameter beyond the schema's generic 'The search appearance type to filter by' description.

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?

Clear verb (Query) + resource (analytics) + specific filter mechanism (search appearance type). Examples (AMP, Rich Results, Video, FAQ) clarify the domain. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tool 'query_by_search_type' which has a very similar name and could confuse the agent.

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 specific examples (AMP, Rich Results, etc.) provide implied usage context—use this when analyzing SERP feature performance. However, there is no explicit 'when-not-to-use' or comparison to alternatives like 'query_search_analytics' or 'query_by_search_type' despite the high similarity in naming.

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