get_performance_overview

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the full weight of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention the 2-day data lag for Search Console, the read-only nature, normalization, or any error/edge cases. The lag is only hinted in the 'days' parameter description, not in the main description, so an agent calling this tool with default parameters may not realize results are stale by two days. This is a significant gap for a data-returning tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the essence (summary of search performance) and lists the three concrete output components, which is efficient and scannable. Nothing extraneous.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explicitly names the content of the response (totals, daily trend, top 5 queries/pages), which gives an agent a clear expectation of return shape. It omits any mention of error handling or data availability caveats, but for a summary tool the essential information is present. The description is adequate for a tool of this simplicity.

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 100% and each parameter has a useful description. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema about how to specify the period, and it doesn't clarify relationships between days and start/end dates. Since the schema already covers this, the description's lack of extra param context is acceptable, but it also fails to reiterate the key caveat about the trailing window ending two days ago. Thus it doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline 3.

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 uses a clear noun phrase ('Summary of site search performance') and enumerates specific deliverables (totals, daily trend, top 5 queries/pages), which makes the purpose obvious. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_search_analytics, but the 'summary' framing and the limited top-5 output imply a high-level view, so it's mostly identifiable even without naming alternatives.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over get_search_analytics or compare_search_periods. The description implies a high-level overview use case, but the absence of any 'when to use' or 'alternative' note leaves the agent to infer from the feature list. That is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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