query_gsc

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

With no annotations and a terse description, the tool's behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, data freshness, error handling) are entirely undisclosed. The agent cannot assess risks or side effects.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence) but at the cost of essential information. It is not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity (8 parameters, output schema).

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 8 parameters (including enums and optional filters), a required project_id, and an output schema, the description is grossly insufficient. The agent cannot infer the query's semantics, data scope, or parameter interactions.

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?

Parameter schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no meaning to the eight parameters. For instance, 'start_date', 'end_date', 'group_by', and filters are not explained, leaving the agent to guess their roles.

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 identifies the action 'Query' and the resource 'GSC performance', and adds specificity with 'synchronized or exact-window live'. However, it does not explain what 'GSC performance' entails (e.g., clicks, impressions), leaving some ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like sync_gsc or list_gsc_connections. It fails to mention prerequisites, alternatives, or scenarios for each mode.

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