Query Search Analytics

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.