get_page_query_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (List[QueryStats]) and a possible error, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any side effects, permissions, or limitations. It is minimal but acceptable for a simple retrieval tool.

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 well-structured with a clear main sentence followed by Args, Returns, and Raises sections. It is concise, with no redundant information, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. The formatting is consistent and scannable.

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?

For a tool with only two simple parameters and an output schema, the description covers the basics. However, it fails to address the high number of sibling tools that could be confused with this one. An agent may not know when to select this over get_page_stats or get_query_page_stats. This omission reduces 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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by providing one-line explanations for both parameters: site_url is 'The URL of the site' and page is 'The specific page URL to get statistics for'. This adds meaning beyond the bare names, though it lacks details like URL format or constraints.

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 states a clear purpose: retrieving detailed traffic statistics for a specific page. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('traffic statistics for a specific page'). However, it does not differentiate from siblings like get_page_stats or get_query_page_stats, which could also apply. The phrase 'detailed traffic statistics' hints at a distinction but leaves ambiguity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, exclusions, or preferred scenarios. Given the numerous similar statistics tools in the sibling list, this lack of routing information is a significant gap.

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