top_pages

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares a safe read operation; the description adds the 'organic traffic' scope and domain/country context. It does not contradict annotations, but it does not disclose output format, pagination, or data freshness, so it adds only moderate transparency beyond the annotation.

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 compact and front-loaded: one clear purpose sentence followed by a concise Args block. Every line adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the low complexity and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is adequate, but no output schema exists and the return format is not described. It also omits any mention of the config parameter, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 description adds useful context for 'domain' (with example) and 'country' (two-letter code, default 'us'), but it omits the 'config' parameter entirely. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but remains incomplete.

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 states a specific verb + resource: 'Get a domain's top-performing pages by organic traffic.' It defines the scope and differentiates from sibling tools like site_map or aeo_site_pages by emphasizing organic traffic performance.

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 purpose implies when to use it (to find top organic pages for a domain), and the domain/country parameters give clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage from the description.

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