Query Search Console Search Analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes that Search Console data typically lags 2-3 days behind today, which is a real-world behavioral quirk an agent needs to know. It also documents the return shape for JSON, including that 'keys' holds one value per requested dimension in the same order as the 'dimensions' argument. It doesn't mention pagination behavior beyond start_row, but the schema already documents that parameter. A 4 is appropriate because the description adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it opens with a one-sentence summary of what the tool does, then lists parameters in a compact block, then gives the return shape, then gives usage guidance. Every section earns its place. It's slightly long, but for a 12-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the length is justified. The 'Use when' and 'Don't use when' sections are particularly efficient. A 4 is appropriate because it's well-organized and information-dense without being bloated.

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 12-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the purpose, all parameter semantics, the return format, the data lag behavior, and usage guidance. The only notable gap is that it doesn't explain the exact semantics of each filter_operator (e.g., the difference between 'includingRegex' and 'excludingRegex'), and it doesn't mention that the API may have additional constraints (like date range limits). But given the complexity, the description covers nearly everything an agent needs to call the tool correctly. A 4 is appropriate.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It does this well: it explains the site_url format with an example ('sc-domain:example.com'), the date format (YYYY-MM-DD), the valid dimensions list, the search_type enum, the filter parameters with a concrete example (filter_dimension='page', filter_operator='contains', filter_value='/blog/'), and the response_format options. It doesn't explain every parameter in exhaustive detail (e.g., it doesn't explain the exact semantics of each filter_operator), but it covers the essential meaning of all 12 parameters. A 4 is justified because the description compensates well for the 0% schema coverage, though it could go deeper on filter operator semantics.

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 ('Query'), a specific resource ('Google Search Console's Search Analytics data'), and enumerates the exact metrics returned (clicks, impressions, CTR, average position) broken down by dimensions. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying 'Don't use when: You need page indexing status (use gsc_inspect_url instead).' This is a clear, specific, and well-differentiated purpose.

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 provides explicit 'Use when' examples with concrete dimensions ('What are our top search queries this month?' -> dimensions=['query']), and an explicit exclusion with a named alternative ('Don't use when: You need page indexing status (use gsc_inspect_url instead)'). This is exactly the kind of when-to-use vs alternatives guidance that helps an agent select the right tool.

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