analytics_search_appearance

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool 'gets' data, implying a read operation, but does not confirm safety, disclose side effects (none expected), required authorizations, or rate limits. The tool name and context suggest it's analytic and read-only, but the description leaves uncertainty.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant or extraneous information. It efficiently communicates the core function.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should hint at the structure of returned data (e.g., list of appearance types with metrics) but does not. With 4 parameters, it covers the basics but omits context like default values for 'days' and 'limit' (though schema provides defaults) or the meaning of 'appearance type'. The description is too sparse to fully prepare an agent for invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-specific details beyond the schema. For example, it does not explain acceptable formats for 'siteUrl' or the effect of 'sortBy'. The schema descriptions are adequate but the tool description misses the chance to clarify parameter usage.

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 accurately states that the tool retrieves performance data grouped by search appearance type over a set period. It uses 'get performance breakdown', a clear verb-noun pair, and specifies the grouping dimension. Among many sibling analytics tools, it focuses on a distinct dimension (search appearance), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from others like 'analytics_page_performance'.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives like 'analytics_top_queries' or 'analytics_by_country'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., site must be verified) or when not to use it. Given the large sibling set, this omission hinders correct selection.

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