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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotations—no mention of return shape, pagination, site-scoping behavior, or default date handling—leaving it at baseline.

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 only one sentence, which is concise in length, but it is awkwardly worded and lacks a clear predicate. A clear sentence like 'Returns search queries that match a specific page' would be both shorter and more useful; the current sentence is under-specified rather than 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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and several sibling tools, the definition needs to clarify what the response contains and how this tool differs from the broadly named query sibling. The schema documents mechanics, but the description leaves the core semantics and output shape ambiguous.

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 seven parameters and their defaults, bounds, and enum are fully documented there. The tool description adds nothing about parameter semantics, so the schema carries the burden and baseline 3 applies.

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 'What searches a specific page is shown for.' is a fragment, not a clear statement of an action, and it essentially restates the title 'Queries for a page'. It names the resource (a page) but has no verb and no differentiation from sibling tools like query or inspect_url.

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 no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the text when to prefer page_queries over query, top, or inspect_url; it must infer this from parameter names and sibling titles.

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