sc_query_breakdown_by_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context – nothing about the Search Console data source, date-range expectations, or result ordering – so it neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core question, no filler. The second sentence earns its place as usage context, though the description is arguably under-specified rather than maximally efficient.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the read-only annotations cover safety. However, with four required parameters and 0% schema coverage, an agent lacks format guidance for dates and URLs, leaving a real gap for a data-query tool.

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?

Five parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description names none of them beyond implying a page. Formats for date_start/date_end, page_url, and the meaning of limit (default 25, per-page query cap) are left entirely undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 verb and resource ('which search queries bring traffic to one specific page') and scopes it to a single page, which naturally separates it from site-wide siblings like sc_top_queries. It never explicitly names an alternative, so it stops short of a 5 but is unambiguous about what it returns.

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?

'Useful to decide which keywords to strengthen in that page's content' gives a downstream purpose but no when-to-use trigger, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools such as sc_page_performance or sc_top_queries. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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