get_page_performance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or what happens if no data exists. While outputs are listed, the mechanism and constraints (e.g., maximum top queries) are omitted.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the key purpose ('Full GSC picture for one URL'), and lists specific outputs succinctly. Every word is useful with no redundancy.

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 tool has an output schema, the description covers return values adequately by naming the metrics. However, it could mention default lookback window or data recency expectations, but overall it is sufficiently complete for its moderate complexity.

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 schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (days, page_url, site_url), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond what is already in the schema; it focuses on outputs. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as no added value.

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 the tool returns a 'full GSC picture for one URL' including specific metrics: clicks, impressions, CTR, position, and top queries. This verb+resource combination ('get page performance') is direct and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_striking_distance_keywords' or 'analyze_content_decay', which have different focuses.

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 implies usage for a single URL deep dive but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'use this for raw performance, not for trend analysis'). No when-not-to-use or crossover with siblings is mentioned.

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