get_top_queries

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 a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait — that results are enriched with a CTR-vs-position benchmark score — which the schema does not express. It stops short of describing result shape or pagination, hence not a 5.

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, zero waste, correctly front-loaded: what it does first, then when to use it, then sibling routing. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description does convey the essential return content (ranked queries plus CTR benchmark scores). It omits result-count/pagination behavior, but annotations and the limit parameter largely cover the practical call surface.

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 7 well-documented params (including enums for device, period, searchType), so the schema carries parameter meaning entirely. The description adds no filter semantics, syntax, or defaults beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('List the top Search Console queries') plus a distinctive secondary behavior ('score each query against the CTR benchmark for its position'). This differentiates it from siblings like get_top_pages and find_quick_wins without needing their schemas.

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 when-to-use ('when the user asks which queries bring traffic or which queries underperform their rank') plus explicit alternatives with routing conditions: get_top_pages for pages, find_quick_wins for opportunity buckets rather than a plain ranking. 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.