gsc_query_search_appearance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and behavioral aspects. However, the description adds no extra context beyond the grouping dimension, such as pagination, rate limits, or default date ranges. It does not contradict annotations, but provides minimal additional behavioral transparency.

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, clear sentence without unnecessary words, making it concise and easily parsed. It loses a point for being overly minimal—while concise, it could include a bit more operational detail without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain how to set the grouping dimension, date formats, site URL requirements, or what the response contains, leaving an AI agent without enough context to 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?

With only 11% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it only mentions 'grouped by search appearance,' hinting at the dimensions parameter. It does not explain required parameters like siteUrl, startDate, endDate, or optional ones like filters, maxRows, or aggregationType, leaving significant gaps.

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 'Query Search Analytics grouped by search appearance' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying the tool's purpose and distinguishing it from sibling tools like gsc_query_queries and gsc_query_pages. The grouping dimension 'search appearance' is mentioned explicitly, making the tool's function 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 implies use for search appearance grouping, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no cross-reference to sibling tools, leaving the usage context only implied by the naming convention.

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