top_pages

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 only a metric inventory, which an existing output schema already conveys, and says nothing about auth requirements, quotas, or whether results are sorted/truncated by limit.

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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though it spends its one clause on metrics rather than on the parameters or usage context that are actually missing.

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-value explanations are rightly omitted, and the annotations cover the read-only nature. However, for a four-parameter analytics report with 0% schema coverage, the absence of any date-range or scope guidance leaves an agent guessing how to call it correctly — this is a moderate gap rather than a fatal one.

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% — none of the four parameters (limit, date_start, date_end, property_id) is documented anywhere. The description mentions sessions and metrics but adds no meaning to any parameter, not even the '7daysAgo'/'today' date defaults or what property_id must reference.

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) and the ranking dimension (sessions), plus the metric set returned. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like traffic_sources or sc_page_performance, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with those alternatives.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all: nothing indicates whether this is the right tool for a page-level traffic breakdown versus run_report or traffic_sources, and no prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid property_id) are mentioned.

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