gsc_top_pages_by_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds behavioral context: filtering by exact query match and returning rows by page dimension. 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: first provides clear purpose, second adds contextual relevance. No unnecessary words. Very concise.

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 rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) and complete schema, the description provides sufficient context. The real-world cannibalization audit example adds completeness. No output schema, but standard rows are implied.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond emphasizing 'exact query match', but schema already covers parameter semantics adequately.

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 that the tool returns pages ranking for a specific query with a specific use case (cannibalization audit). It uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gsc_top_queries and gsc_top_pages.

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 explicitly frames the tool as input for a decannibalization audit and explains the action to take if multiple pages rank for the same query. While it does not state when not to use it, the context is clear enough for appropriate selection.

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