Search Console performance report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some behavioral context by enumerating returned metrics, grouping, filters, and pagination, but it does not disclose limitations like data lag, sampling, or row-limit behavior beyond what the schema already notes.

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, tight sentence with no filler. Every clause adds value: metrics, grouping dimensions, filters, and pagination are all front-loaded and relevant.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema and a moderately documented schema, this is functional but thin. It names the core outputs and grouping options, but omits usage context and operational caveats such as data lag and pagination offset behavior, leaving the schema and annotations to carry the rest.

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 70%, so most parameters already carry descriptions. The description's dimension list maps directly to the existing dimensions enum and adds no new semantic detail for rowLimit, searchType, or aggregationType, which remain undocumented in the schema and are not clarified 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?

The description clearly states the resource ('Search Console performance') and the exact metrics returned: clicks, impressions, CTR, position. It also lists grouping dimensions and mentions filters/pagination, which distinguishes it from sibling GSC inspection tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'list', so it is clear but not quite a 5.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings like gsc_compare_periods, gsc_opportunities, or gsc_ctr_opportunities. It neither states exclusions nor names alternatives, so an agent has to infer placement from the tool name alone.

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