Find Page Keywords

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small signal about what is returned (queries tied to clicks and impressions) but omits meaningful behavioral context such as the default 28-day window being a lookback, GSC data freshness lag, or the 20-row default truncation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal density.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries more burden to say what comes back, yet it only gestures at 'clicks and impressions' without indicating the other returned dimensions or the pagination/row-limit ceiling. The required site_url and page_url are fully documented in the schema, so the core invocation is still safe.

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 100%, so parameters are already well documented in structured data, including the site_url/domain-property nuance and row_limit tiers. The description contributes nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete resource and scope: search queries driving clicks and impressions for one specific page. An agent can distinguish it from site-wide siblings like wsp_show_traffic_gsc or wsp_run_report_gsc, though the description never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance in the description itself. The only routing hint (use wsp_run_report_gsc for exports beyond 500 rows) lives in the row_limit schema text, not the description, so the agent gets no explicit alternative-selection rule from the prose.

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