get_search_analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are 'raw' and caller-controlled, but says nothing about rate limits, quota consumption, pagination, or latency, which matter for a raw analytics query. Adds some value over the annotations but not rich behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with the core capability followed by routing. The four sibling references are dense but each earns its place by disambiguating. Slightly list-heavy but no filler.

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?

For a 9-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies enough for correct selection and invocation. It stops short of describing the shape of returned rows (dimensions/metrics), which an agent calling a raw query would benefit from knowing, but the rest is complete.

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 coverage is 89%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter including the nuanced dataState tradeoff. The description merely echoes the parameter categories without adding syntax or format meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Query raw Google Search Console search analytics') and enumerates the controllable facets (dates, dimensions, filters, search type, row limit, data state). It clearly distinguishes itself from the shaped report siblings by positioning as the raw/custom-breakdown tool.

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?

Explicit routing: 'Use when the user needs a custom breakdown that the shaped reports do not offer,' then names three alternatives (get_performance_summary, get_top_queries/get_top_pages, compare_periods) with the exact condition that selects each. This is textbook when-to-use guidance.

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