gsc_top_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the sort order and output fields but does not reveal scope defaults (e.g., siteUrl optional behavior, limit application), data latency, or any prerequisites. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a tool that aggregates search data.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by output details. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, but the description lists the returned metrics, which is helpful. However, it omits any mention of how optional parameters like siteUrl and queryFilter affect the result, and does not explain the date range scope beyond the schema. The description is adequate but could be more complete for a tool with no annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, but it does mention the output fields, which are not parameters. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 retrieves top pages from Google Search results sorted by clicks, distinguishing it from query-focused siblings like gsc_top_queries. It also lists the key return metrics, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when page-level performance data is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., gsc_top_queries) or provide when-not-to-use conditions. The guidance is implied by the resource type 'pages' rather than stated.

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