Page Performance

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

The description adds a behavioral detail that the data is aggregated 'across pageviews', which goes beyond the read-only annotation. However, it does not disclose any side effects, rate limits, or other runtime behaviors.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately states the purpose and key outputs. It is concise, free of fluff, and 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?

The description covers the metric types but leaves ambiguity about the output granularity (e.g., per-page vs. overall averages) and does not mention any grouping or filtering implications. Given the absence of an output schema, more explicit detail would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema already provides exhaustive descriptions for all four parameters. The tool description does not add any further meaning or clarify parameter usage, so it adheres to the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 indicates it provides page load performance metrics and lists the specific types of times (network, server, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on performance, though it doesn't explicitly state an action like 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., 'pages' or 'visits_summary'). It fails to mention scenarios where this report is more appropriate.

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