analytics_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only lists supported dimensions but does not disclose return format, default date ranges, pagination, authorization requirements, or any side effects. For a read-like query tool, this is insufficient disclosure.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence establishes the tool's main purpose and differentiation, and the second lists key dimensions. All information is relevant and front-loaded.

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 the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is quite thin. It doesn't explain what the query returns, how filters work, default date handling, or any orchestration details. The description is inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior in complex scenarios.

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 schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it merely repeats the dimension values. No additional meaning or clarification is given.

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 this is a unified search performance query tool, and it differentiates itself by replacing single-dimension tools. It lists the supported dimensions (queries, pages, countries, devices, search appearances), providing a clear scope. However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternative tools it replaces, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 that this tool should be used for search performance queries when multiple dimensions are needed, as it replaces single-dimension tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling analytics tools (e.g., analytics_compare, analytics_anomalies, analytics_advanced) or provide any exclusion criteria. The guidance is implied but not fully articulated.

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