gsc_top_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 disclosing behavior. It only says 'Gets top performing pages,' which implies a read operation but does not explain how performance is measured, whether results are sorted, what metrics are returned, or whether site verification is required.

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 a single sentence with no filler and the key action is front-loaded. Despite being under-specified in content, this is a model of conciseness.

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 and no annotations, the description needs to provide more context about return values, ordering, limit behavior, and date-range handling. It only states that top pages are returned, which is not enough for an agent to fully understand what to expect.

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 only 33%, so the description needs to compensate for the poorly documented parameters. It does not: 'for a site' only restates the siteUrl concept, and dateRange and limit receive no explanation beyond their schema names. An agent gets little help understanding parameter semantics.

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 uses a clear verb and resource: 'Gets top performing pages for a site.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gsc_top_queries because it focuses on pages rather than queries. It does not specify what metric defines 'top performing,' so it stops short of a 5.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gsc_query_performance, gsc_top_queries, or gsc_coverage_report. No exclusions, conditions, or alternative tool routes are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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