site-explorer-paid-pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'powerful filtering and comparison capabilities' and references using another tool for schema details, but lacks critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error handling. For a tool with 12 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated clearly in the first sentence. The second sentence provides a practical guideline without unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be more structured by explicitly listing key parameters or use cases, but overall, it avoids verbosity.

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 complexity (12 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter meanings, expected outputs, error conditions, and behavioral constraints. While it hints at filtering and comparison, it does not provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional documentation or trial-and-error.

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%, meaning none of the 12 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description does not explain any parameters beyond implying filtering and comparison capabilities, which loosely relates to parameters like 'where', 'order_by', or 'mode'. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving most parameters semantically unclear.

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's purpose: 'Returns detailed metrics about pages on a specified site or URL that are ranking in paid search results, including traffic, keyword data, ad presence, and changes over time, with powerful filtering and comparison capabilities.' It specifies the verb ('Returns'), resource ('pages'), and scope ('paid search results'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-organic-keywords' or 'site-explorer-pages-by-traffic', which likely focus on organic metrics or broader traffic data.

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 includes a usage guideline: 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema,' which implies a prerequisite step. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compared to 'site-explorer-organic-keywords' for organic vs. paid data), nor does it specify exclusions or detailed context for selection among siblings.

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