Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• query_search_analyticsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description need not repeat all of that. It adds non-obvious context by stating results are top rows, not a complete query universe, which complements the openWorldHint annotation. Rate limits and exact result ordering are not covered, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the read-only guarantee, states the operation and outputs efficiently, and adds a meaningful caveat in the final clause.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The required parameters are described in the schema, the output schema covers return shape, and annotations cover safety traits. However, with 11 parameters, the description leaves important interactions underspecified, especially pagination/fetch_all vs row_limit and how filters are applied, so an agent may need extra inference to invoke the tool optimally.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is only 27%, so the description needed to compensate, but it does not. It loosely references 'named dimensions' and 'top rows,' which relates to dimensions and row-limit parameters, but it gives no guidance on filters, search_type, aggregation_type, fetch_all, max_rows, row_limit, or how multiple filters combine.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states a specific action and resource: query first-party Google Search Console performance data. It also names the return content (named dimensions, clicks, impressions, raw CTR fraction, average position), making it clearly distinct from siblings list_sites and inspect_url.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The read-only framing and 'first-party Google Search Console performance data' give clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It also flags that results are not a complete query universe, which is a useful selection caveat, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it.

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

• inspect_urlA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond annotations, the description explains exactly what the tool returns (currently indexed version) and what it never does (live testing or requesting indexing). This adds meaningful behavioral context to the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is extremely concise at two sentences, with the read-only nature front-loaded and each sentence providing distinct value. No filler or redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the presence of a full output schema, complete parameter descriptions, and annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral distinction from live URL testing. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Return Google URL Inspection information for the version currently in Google's index.' It also distinguishes the operation from a live URL test, clearly differentiating it from other possible inspection workflows.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly excludes a key alternative use case: 'This is not a live URL test and never requests indexing.' This gives the agent clear guidance on when not to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives.

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

• list_sitesA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the identity used for authorization and noting that exact property identifiers and permission levels are preserved in the output.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  A single, front-loaded sentence that begins with 'Read-only' and communicates scope, identity, and output fidelity without wasted words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no parameters, a rich annotation set, and an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: read-only behavior, identity scope, result scope, and permission-level preservation. No critical information appears missing.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to clarify beyond the schema. The description appropriately focuses on scope and output behavior rather than inventing parameter details.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('every Google Search Console property') and scope ('available to the current ADC identity'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like query_search_analytics and inspect_url by focusing on property inventory rather than analytics or URL inspection.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description conveys the appropriate context for use: enumerating all accessible properties for the current identity. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the distinct purpose compared to sibling tools makes the usage context clear enough.

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