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. It only says 'top ... by clicks/impressions', which implies a sorted list but doesn't disclose how 'top' is determined (e.g., sort order, aggregation, date range handling, or whether both metrics are returned). The behavior is underspecified for a tool that likely returns multiple rows.

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 with no fluff. It's concise, but the brevity sacrifices essential context. The key info (resource and metric) is present, but there's no structure or front-loading of critical usage constraints.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only says 'Top GSC pages by clicks/impressions.' It lacks critical details: what does the output look like? How is 'top' defined? Are there any sorting or filtering options? How does it differ from similar tools? This is insufficient for an agent to call it correctly without guessing.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides. The mention of 'clicks/impressions' indirectly relates to the output but not to how parameters affect results. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles most 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 states a clear verb-noun pair ('Top GSC pages') and the metric (clicks/impressions), making it distinct from sibling tools like gsc_top_queries which focus on queries. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from gsc_query_page_matrix or compare_gsc_ga4_pages, which also deal with pages, so it's clear but not perfectly unique.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 19 siblings, an agent has no indication of why this tool is preferred over gsc_top_queries, gsc_query_page_matrix, or find_high_impression_low_ctr_pages. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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