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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the tool is read-only, what the output rows represent beyond 'how each page does', whether results are aggregated, or how pagination works. The schema mentions has_more but the description adds no behavioral context.

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 concise sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the core concept and includes a useful hint about output content, though the phrasing 'with how each page does on them' is slightly awkward.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the returned data looks like for the agent to verify a correct call. It only hints at per-page performance and does not mention row structure, sorting, or other response details. Parameter documentation is strong, but the overall context is incomplete for a tool with 6 parameters and no structured output metadata.

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 each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics for the parameters, which is acceptable given complete schema coverage, earning the baseline of 3.

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 names a specific resource (queries with multiple pages shown) and a specific outcome (per-page performance), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_opportunities or page_queries. It is a noun-phrase rather than a verb phrase, but the intent is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like page_queries, find_opportunities, or brand_split. The purpose implies a use case, but no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria are provided.

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