gsc_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'live' data, but GSC data has typical delays not noted. It does not mention rate limits, permissions, or side effects (though it is read-only). This lack of transparency is a gap.

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 concise sentences: the first defines the tool's core function, the second anchors it vs. a known alternative. No redundant text.

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?

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and multiple dimensions/filters, the description does not explain the return format or ordering. It mentions the metrics but not that each row corresponds to a dimension combination. Could be more complete.

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 67% (descriptions for 6 of 9 parameters). The description adds no additional parameter guidance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline is 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 clearly states the tool retrieves Search Console search analytics (clicks, impressions, CTR, position) grouped by dimensions. It distinguishes itself from the export by being live and filterable, and from sibling GSC tools (like gsc_inspect_url) as the core analytics query.

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 implies it is the main SEO analytics tool, similar to GSC Performance export but with live/filterable capabilities. It does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives, but the context among sibling tools makes it clear.

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