get_query_analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so safety profile is covered. The description adds the aggregate-vs-per-query behavioral boundary, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose additional traits like return structure, pagination, or rate limits. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the core behavior and scope. Every word earns its place, with the 'NOT per-query' caveat adding critical disambiguation without bloat.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains the aggregate nature, date range, and metrics, while the format parameter hints at output type. However, it doesn't describe the shape of the 'time series' (e.g., daily breakdown), which would make it more 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'shows/clicks/position' which aligns with query_indicator enum values, adding slight semantic context, but it doesn't go beyond the schema's already thorough parameter descriptions.

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 action ('Aggregate search-traffic time series') and clearly delineates the scope ('total shows/clicks/position over a date range'). The explicit 'NOT per-query' differentiates it from sibling tools like get_search_queries, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides a clear exclusion ('NOT per-query'), signaling when not to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for per-query data, leaving some inference to the agent. The negative cue is strong but lacks a direct 'instead, use X' pointer.

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