gsc_run_weekly_seo_ops_report

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

The description mentions 'read-only' which assures no side effects, but does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or how it combines the three data sources. With no annotations, more behavioral context is desirable.

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 a single, clear sentence with 16 words—no redundancy or excess.

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 and no schema descriptions, the description is too brief. It omits details on how parameters affect the report and the relationship between inputs and outputs, though an output schema exists.

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% and the description provides no elaboration on any of the 9 parameters (e.g., site_url, row_limit, data_state). Users must rely solely on parameter names, which are ambiguous.

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 composes a read-only weekly SEO ops report from specific data sources (Search Analytics, diagnostic queues, manual checklist). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_search_analytics (raw data retrieval) and gsc_build_*_queue (queue builders).

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 use for generating a consolidated report but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against alternatives. Context from sibling names helps, but the description itself lacks usage criteria.

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