get_query_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'get' which implies a read, but does not mention potential rate limits, result size limitations, or whether the top queries list is fixed or dynamic. The tool could return many results, but no pagination or filtering behavior 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?

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise with no verbosity, but it is under-specified. It lacks essential context about the data scope and parameters, so conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. Neither particularly front-loaded nor poorly structured, it is acceptable but not exemplary.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description fails to explain what 'top queries' means, how results are ordered, or any time range. With many sibling tools, the agent cannot confidently map this tool to a specific use case. The description is too thin given the complexity of the tool and the need to differentiate it from similar tools.

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% and the description does not mention the site_url parameter at all. The sole parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, so the agent has no idea what format or constraints apply (e.g., URL encoding, domain vs subpath). The description adds no value beyond the parameter name.

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 the action ('get') and resource ('traffic statistics for top queries'), but the phrase 'top queries' is vague and doesn't clarify what qualifies as top or what period is covered. It does not distinguish this from the many sibling tools with similar names like get_query_traffic_stats or get_page_query_stats, so an agent cannot reliably choose this tool over alternatives.

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 vs any of the sibling tools. Given the large set of query-related tools (get_query_traffic_stats, get_page_query_stats, get_query_page_stats, etc.), the absence of any conditions or exclusions leaves the agent to guess. This is a critical gap.

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