sc_page_performance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. Beyond that, the description adds no behavioral context: it does not state that a site_url and date window are mandatory, whether dates are constrained, or how the limit behaves. It mostly restates the metric list, which the output schema already carries.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key resource is named first. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps elsewhere rather than being a virtue of careful editing.

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 an output schema present, the metric list need not be restated, yet the description still omits required-parameter expectations, date-range semantics, and sibling differentiation for a crowded Search Console toolset. For a tool with three required inputs, this is too thin.

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% for all four parameters, so the description carries the full burden and adds essentially nothing about site_url, date_start, date_end, or limit. The only implicit hint is that 'Top pages' implies ordering/truncation, which loosely relates to limit.

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?

States a specific resource (top pages in Google Search) and the metrics returned (clicks, impressions, CTR, average position), so an agent understands it is a page-level Search Console performance report. However, it never contrasts itself with close siblings like sc_top_queries, top_pages, or sc_query_breakdown_by_page, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the name alone.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools. The agent must guess that this is the page-dimension counterpart to sc_top_queries and how to choose between them.

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