get_top_pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving 'top pages' but doesn't specify what 'top' means (e.g., by views, visits, or other metrics), how results are ordered, if there's pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words or fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness in tool definitions.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, and the description's minimal detail, it's incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex analytics data. It doesn't explain what 'top pages' entails, the structure of the output, or behavioral aspects like data freshness or limitations, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter input.

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%, with clear documentation for each parameter (start_date, end_date, limit) including formats, constraints, and defaults. The description adds no additional semantic details beyond implying date-range usage, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles most of the parameter explanation without extra value from the description.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('top pages') with the source ('from Clicky analytics') and scope ('for a date range'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_page_traffic' or 'get_total_visitors', which might also involve date ranges or page-related data, leaving some ambiguity about uniqueness.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_page_traffic' or 'get_traffic_sources', nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts. It only states what the tool does, without indicating appropriate scenarios or comparisons with siblings.

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