Search Console: Top-Seiten

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results include impressions, CTR and average position, but says nothing about ordering guarantees, result limits, or how the default property (GSC_PROPERTY) is resolved.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states resource, ranking basis and returned metrics with no filler. It is efficient, though it spends its only sentence on output content rather than routing guidance.

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 low-complexity, fully-optional-parameter, read-only tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what the rows are and which metrics come back. Only the missing sibling routing and ordering behavior keep it from being complete.

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%: all three parameters (tage, limit, property) are fully documented in the schema, including defaults and bounds. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 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 names a specific verb ("Liefert") and resource ("Seiten einer Google-Search-Console-Property"), plus the ranking criterion ("mit den meisten Klicks") and the metrics returned. It is clearly distinct in content from a query-level tool, but it never names or contrasts with the sibling gsc_suchanfragen, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 phrase "mit den meisten Klicks" implies this is the tool for a top-pages-by-clicks report, which is usable guidance by implication. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer gsc_suchanfragen or gsc_fast_seite_eins, and no prerequisites (e.g. that a property must be configured).

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