gsc_top_pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: default data_state of 'all' and that 'final' lags 2-3 days behind the dashboard. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words, front-loaded with purpose and key equivalence. Efficiently conveys all essential information.

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 simple wrapper tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, equivalent tool, data lag, and parameter defaults. It is fully adequate for an agent to understand invocation and behavior.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds context that results are sorted 'by clicks' and mentions default values for days and limit, which are also in schema but reinforces usage. Adds meaning beyond schema by noting equivalence and data_state.

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 it is a 'convenience wrapper' that returns top pages for a property by clicks over N days, and explicitly equates it to gsc_search_analytics with dimensions=['page']. This distinguishes it from siblings like gsc_search_analytics and gsc_top_queries.

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 quick top-pages retrieval by calling it a 'convenience wrapper' and noting data_state behavior. It does not explicitly state when to use this vs. gsc_search_analytics or other tools, but the equivalence provides clear context.

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