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 behavioral disclosure, and it supplies almost nothing: no statement that this is a read-only listing, no mention of sort direction, pagination, or what a returned page record contains. Only the ranking metric ('by pageviews') is disclosed.

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?

It is a single five-word fragment with zero padding, and the ranking metric is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the fragment form is terse to the point of being an incomplete sentence.

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?

For a list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least say what is returned (page identifier plus views) and confirm it is a safe read. Against roughly twenty analytics siblings, this definition is too thin to let an agent call it confidently.

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 descriptions and bounds for both limit (1-50, default 10) and range (max 90d, default 7d), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional syntax or format guidance beyond the schema, which matches the baseline for fully documented parameters.

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 fragment 'Pages ranked by pageviews' names the resource (pages) and the ranking metric (pageviews), so the agent can infer a top-N listing. However, it is not a verb+resource statement and gives no scope qualifiers, leaving it just above vague. It does implicitly distinguish itself from siblings like top_sources and top_countries by naming pages.

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 choose this tool over the many other top_* and analytics siblings, nor any stated prerequisites such as a required site/workspace context. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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