search_analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral detail — that results are compared against the equal previous period — but says nothing about the rowLimit ceiling, pagination via startRow, or how comparison halves the result budget, all of which affect how an agent should call it.

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?

A single short clause-sentence with no waste, and the resource and the comparison behavior are front-loaded. The terseness is efficient rather than padded, though it borders on under-specification for a 9-parameter tool.

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?

This is a fairly complex query tool: 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, an enum-constrained dimension list, and nested filter groups, with no output schema to explain returns. One sentence cannot cover that surface, and key mechanics — pagination, row caps, and filter semantics — are absent.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only implicitly touches two params — "top rows" gestures at rowLimit and "compare with the equal previous period" clarifies the compare flag — while site, type, dimensions, startRow, and the nested dimensionFilterGroups structure are left entirely undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Query top Search Console rows") plus a scope hint ("top" implies ordered/limited results) and the period-over-period comparison behavior. It does not distinguish this from siblings like movers, striking_distance, or low_ctr, which all operate on the same analytics data, so an agent cannot route confidently between them.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives. Given that six of the seven sibling tools (striking_distance, low_ctr, cannibalization, movers) are also Search Console analytics queries, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap.

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