Question queries (AI Overview / featured snippet targets)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral details about grouping by page and optional checks for headings/FAQ schema, which are not in annotations. It does not contradict annotations and adds meaningful context about what the tool does with the data.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose and differentiator. Every part adds value – examples of query types, grouping behavior, optional check, and target use case. No wasted words.

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 read-only analysis tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and output concept (grouped queries per page, optional schema checks). Operational details like date ranges, filters, and thresholds are covered in the schema. Given the complexity and annotations, this is largely complete, though it does not describe return format or potential limitations.

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 coverage is 63%, with descriptions for endDate, startDate, siteUrl, filters, and checkPages. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of checkPages (checking headings/FAQ schema) and the grouping behavior, but it does not clarify top, minImpressions, or searchType beyond the schema. It does not fully compensate for the uncovered 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: it identifies question-style queries (with examples) and groups them by page, with an optional check for matching headings and FAQ schema. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by saying 'not which page to fix', which differentiates it from page-audit or fix-oriented tools.

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 usage context by stating 'What to add to a page, not which page to fix' and mentions 'Targets for FAQ sections and AI Overviews', implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide explicit when/when-not conditions beyond this contrast.

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