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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as rate limits, data freshness, or filter edge cases, but it also does not contradict the annotations. Given the existing annotation coverage, this is an adequate 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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The primary function is front-loaded, and the example is both illustrative and economical. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has nine optional parameters and no output schema, so the description could reasonably explain what the returned rows contain or mention pagination behavior. It does not, but the schema is largely self-documenting and the example conveys the core interaction. Overall, the description is adequate but leaves the output shape to inference.

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 89% schema description coverage, the schema does most of the parameter documentation. The description adds practical meaning by illustrating how the 'dimension' parameter combines with country/device filters ('top pages in Germany on mobile'), which clarifies that country and device act as filters rather than grouping dimensions. This exceeds the baseline.

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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving 'Top queries, pages, countries or devices for a period' and gives a concrete example that shows the possible scope. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like 'query' or 'page_queries', so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 choose this tool over alternatives such as 'query' or 'page_queries'. The example 'top pages in Germany on mobile' demonstrates capability but does not state conditions, exclusions, or relative suitability, leaving the selection entirely to inference.

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