gsc_top_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'Get top pages by clicks,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, or whether the data is limited to specific date ranges beyond schema defaults. The 'convenient shortcut' phrase is vague and does not explain what is being abstracted away. There is no mention of ownership or permission requirements, making this minimally transparent.

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, focused sentence that delivers the purpose immediately. 'A convenient shortcut' is a harmless, clarifying fragment. There is no redundancy or filler, making it well-structured and concise. Every word earns its place.

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 is a simple read-only list endpoint with only one required parameter, and the schema covers all parameters with defaults. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not specify the shape of the returned data (e.g., does it include impressions, position, or just URL and clicks?). The phrase 'convenient shortcut' is unhelpful without explaining what alternate tool or report it wraps. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is adequate but leaves room for ambiguity about the returned fields and edge cases.

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 the baseline is 3. The description itself adds minimal parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides—it does not explain how 'siteUrl' relates to the 'site' mentioned, nor does it clarify 'limit' or date formatting. Since the schema already documents all four parameters and the description offers no additional context, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Get top pages by clicks in Google Search for a site.' It uses a specific verb (Get), identifies the resource (top pages), and includes the metric (clicks) and context (for a site). This distinguishes it from siblings like gsc_top_queries (queries vs pages) and gsc_search_analytics (more general). The phrase 'convenient shortcut' adds context that it simplifies a more complex operation.

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. 'A convenient shortcut' hints that it is a simpler alternative to a more granular tool (likely gsc_search_analytics), but it does not name the alternative or specify conditions for use. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so the agent gets only a vague sense of when this tool is appropriate.

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