queue_from_performance

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates state against an external system. The description adds the useful context that the URL set is derived from Search performance data, but says nothing about what the queue feeds into, whether re-queueing duplicates work, or any volume/rate implications of pulling up to 25k URLs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the rationale second; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, but structurally sound.

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?

For a five-parameter, state-mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the source of the URLs but omits what happens after queueing, how the queued set relates to run_inspections, and any limits. Adequate to call it, not adequate to predict its effects.

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 60%, and the description adds no meaning for days, max_urls, search_type or min_impressions beyond the word 'impressions' loosely gesturing at the filter. With a moderate coverage gap and no compensating explanation of defaults or the date window, the description does little work here.

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?

States a specific verb ('Queue') and a precisely scoped resource ('every page that got impressions in Search'), which lets an agent distinguish it from queue_urls and queue_from_sitemaps by the URL source. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 parenthetical '(useful to inspect the pages Google actually shows)' gives a rationale for choosing this tool over other queueing tools, which implies the when-to-use case. However, it never states when NOT to use it or names the alternative queueing siblings, leaving the routing decision partly to inference.

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