gsc_search_analytics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('query search performance') but does not mention rate limits, authentication, pagination behavior (despite row_limit and start_row parameters), or that results are aggregated. The behavioral disclosure is insufficient.

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?

A single sentence with no superfluous words. It starts with the tool's source ('Search Console:') and immediately states the action and output. Perfectly concise 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 no output schema, 7 parameters, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return format, pagination, date range constraints, or aggregation details. A more complete description would help agents understand the tool's full behavior.

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 57% (4 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The description adds context by listing the metrics returned (clicks, impressions, CTR, position), which helps interpret results but does not clarify parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It is adequate but not exceptional.

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 queries search performance (clicks, impressions, CTR, position) by dimensions over a date range. It specifies the resource (Search Console) and action (query). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like gsc_url_inspect, though the purpose is distinct enough.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gsc_url_inspect for single URL data). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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