Find quick-win queries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what is in the annotations, such as auth needs or rate limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, this score is adequate.

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 is concise (15 words) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices necessary parameter context. It earns its place but could be slightly expanded to include parameter semantics without becoming verbose.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, low schema coverage), the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to use the parameters to achieve the stated purpose, leaving the agent unable to construct effective queries. The description should at least briefly clarify the role of key parameters like max_ctr and position ranges.

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 only 13%, with only the 'site_url' parameter having a description. The tool description does not explain the meaning or usage of any parameters (e.g., max_ctr, position_min, min_impressions). This leaves the agent without crucial information for correct invocation, especially given the number of parameters.

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's purpose: identifying queries with meaningful impressions, low CTR, and positions in a target range. It uses a specific verb ('Identify') and resource ('queries'), and the criteria distinguish it from sibling tools like gsc_search_analytics which provide 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 implies usage for finding optimizable queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites. The agent can infer the use case but lacks clear guidance.

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