get_query_page_detail_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'detailed statistics' without explaining data scope, response behavior, required permissions, or any side effects. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description lacks the depth needed for safe invocation.

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 concise and front-loaded with the verb and noun. However, it is under-specified for a tool with three required parameters and many siblings. It earns its place as a simple statement but lacks the supporting detail expected from a useful definition.

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?

Given the tool has three required parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and numerous similar siblings, the description is insufficient. The existence of an output schema helps explain return values, but the description does not provide enough operational context for correct invocation or tool selection.

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%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It mentions 'query' and 'page' but omits 'site_url' entirely and provides no meaning, format, or constraints for any of the three required parameters. This is a critical gap.

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 uses a clear verb+resource structure: 'Get detailed statistics' for a specific 'query and page combination'. This states the tool's core function precisely. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely named siblings like get_query_page_stats, so it is clear but not fully distinctive.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_query_page_stats, get_query_stats, or get_page_stats. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer context or compare naming patterns without support.

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