setup_gsc_access

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is interactive (asks the user for needed value through the client) and re-initializes without a restart. This goes beyond annotations and sets clear expectations for side effects and process.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Interactively fix a broken Google Search Console MCP setup') and immediately followed by concrete examples. Every sentence earns its place with no waste.

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 zero-parameter, interactive setup tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, how it operates (asking the user), and when to call it. While it does not describe expected return values or post-fix confirmation, the simplicity and interactive nature make the description sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema shows an empty object. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, as there is no parameter information to explain. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter docs.

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's verb ('fix') and resource ('Google Search Console MCP setup') and enumerates specific failure modes (missing credentials path, wrong GSC_SITE_URL, invalid key, missing property access). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_gsc_sites or get_sitemaps, which are read-only data tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this whenever a configuration or authentication error is reported.' While it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, the context is clear and no sibling tool serves a similar purpose, providing sufficient guidance for an agent.

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