Search Console queries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context (data is free and from the user's own connected Search Console), which elaborates on the data source but does not disclose any additional behaviors like response structure or rate limits. Since annotations carry most of the burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and data fields, the second sentence provides concrete usage scenarios. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what data is returned, when to use it, and why it matters (verification after edits). No essential information is missing for an agent to decide and invoke the tool 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 schema description for range_days is complete ('28 (default) or 90'), covering 100% of the parameter semantic. The description does not mention the parameter at all, but the schema already does the heavy lifting. No additional value is added beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 returns the user's real ranking keywords with position, clicks and CTR, and explicitly ties it to content decisions and page optimization. It distinguishes itself from siblings like gsc_pages (which likely handles page-level data) by focusing on keyword queries and even provides a concrete example (position 5-20).

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'use when deciding what to write or which page to improve' and 'After you edit a page, this is how you verify it moved.' It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear and actionable. This is strong but not exhaustive.

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