page_queries

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

Annotations cover the read-only and open-world profile, and the description goes beyond them by explaining the `hidden` field: clicks/impressions Search Console counts for the page but excludes from query rows due to query anonymization. That is a real reconciliation caveat an agent would otherwise miss.

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?

Two compact sentences that lead with what is returned before explaining the `hidden` nuance. Dense but every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

No output schema exists, and while the description sketches the return shape (query rows plus page-level totals and `hidden`), it leaves limit/pagination behavior and the site/search_type parameters undocumented. Adequate for a lookup tool but not fully self-sufficient.

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 0% across 10 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It usefully clarifies the page argument takes a full URL and that dates/compare/filters mirror search_queries, but says nothing about site, limit, search_type, or device/country 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?

States a specific resource and scope: the queries that bring traffic to ONE page (full URL), with the page's own totals. The contrast with search_queries is implied via shared parameters rather than stated outright, so the sibling boundary is slightly blurry.

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?

Says it takes 'same dates, compare and filters as search_queries', which tells the agent the two tools are parameter-compatible, but never says when to pick this over search_queries or competing_pages. Usage is inferable from the resource description only.

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