get_search_queries

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, which already signals the tool is read-only. The description adds little beyond restating the read-only nature implicitly via 'analytics'. It discloses the deprecation status, which is a useful meta-context, but does not add behavioral details like rate limits, pagination, or auth requirements. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the deprecation notice and alternative tool. It contains zero wasted words while conveying the tool's purpose, deprecation, and recommended replacement — highly efficient.

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 simple read-only tool with 4 parameters (1 required), the description combined with full schema coverage provides enough context. It names the output metrics (clicks, impressions, position) despite lacking an output schema, and the deprecation notice completes the picture. It could mention date range or format nuances, but these are already in the schema, so the description is sufficiently 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%, meaning all parameters (format, date_to, date_from, host_id) are already documented in the JSON schema. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond the mention of clicks/impressions/position, which is output content rather than parameter semantics. 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?

The description clearly states the tool provides per-query search analytics (clicks, impressions, position). The deprecation notice and pointer to get_popular_search_queries immediately distinguish it from alternatives, making the purpose explicit and 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 explicitly states '[DEPRECATED — use get_popular_search_queries]', giving an unambiguous directive to avoid this tool and use a specific alternative. This is clear when-to-use guidance, even though it primarily says when not to use it.

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