Add a property

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds critical behavioral context: the resulting property may be unverified and all data calls will return 403. This failure-mode disclosure goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The key caveat (no ownership verification) is front-loaded, and the alternative tool is named explicitly.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description provides all necessary context for correct selection and invocation. It fills the one important gap—ownership verification—and points to the correct full workflow.

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?

The tool description itself does not elaborate on site_url, but the input schema documents it 100% including accepted formats and the GSC_SITE_URL fallback behavior. With high schema description coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description neither adds nor contradicts parameter meaning.

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 verb and resource ('Adds a property to Search Console') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling setup_site by emphasizing this tool does NOT verify ownership. This makes the tool's role clear relative to its siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'To actually get a working property, use setup_site' and lists the correct order of tools. It also states the consequence of standalone use (siteUnverifiedUser, 403 errors), making exclusion conditions clear.

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