analyze_query_landscape

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this returns classified aggregates rather than a ranked list, which is useful output-shape context, but it says nothing about data freshness, result size limits, or what happens with sparse data. Adequate but not rich beyond the 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, usage condition second, sibling routing third. No filler or restated name/title content.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description partially compensates by describing the classification axes the result is bucketed into (intent, branded demand, position band). It still leaves the exact returned fields/shape unspecified, which matters for an aggregation tool, but the safety profile is fully covered by annotations.

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 100%, with period and searchType enums and minImpressions bounds fully documented in the schema. The description mentions no parameter syntax or defaults, so it adds nothing beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ("Classify") and resource ("Search Console queries of a property") and names the three classification axes (intent, branded vs non-branded, position band). This clearly separates it from sibling listing tools like get_top_queries, which the description explicitly contrasts against ("a list of winners").

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ("shape of search demand rather than a list of winners") and routes to two named alternatives with their selecting conditions: find_new_queries for newly appearing queries and find_cannibalization for shared queries across pages. Nothing is left to inference.

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