Queries just off page one

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral trait that results are ordered by opportunity rather than raw volume, but omits pagination, result shape, and any auth/rate considerations beyond what the schema states.

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 definition before justification. The closing line ('The single most useful report in Search Console and the UI makes you build it by hand every time') is a value pitch that adds little operational information, though it is brief.

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 read-only analytics query with no output schema, the description conveys what is returned (queries in a positional band ordered by available impressions) and the default window, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. It stops short of describing the limit/days interaction or pagination, leaving minor gaps.

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 only 43%, so the description should compensate more than it does. It does clarify the position band semantics ('between positions 5 and 20 by default') that maps to min_position/max_position and explains why results are ordered, but days, limit, account and min_impressions get no elaboration beyond defaults already visible in the schema.

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 (queries) and resource (queries a property already ranks for, positions 5-20) plus the ordering rule (impressions left on the table). This is clearly distinct from siblings like top_queries or query_search_analytics, which lack the positional band constraint.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it ('where a title rewrite or added depth moves traffic, because the ranking work is already done'), which is actionable usage guidance. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use it versus query_search_analytics/top_queries.

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