Topic Clusters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the tool returns aggregate/per-page metrics and top queries, and it includes an important instruction about relying only on returned data, reporting exact numbers, and avoiding speculation. This is valuable operational guidance not present in annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by output details, use case, and a necessary behavioral warning. It is slightly longer than minimal, but each sentence earns its place; the IMPORTANT instruction is essential for correct use and is not filler.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what data the tool will return (aggregate and per-page metrics, top queries). It also provides essential analysis constraints. Minor gaps remain: it does not mention the meaning or effect of searchType, nor the default date ranges, though the schema covers those details. The tool is simple enough that the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of urlPrefix by explaining it in the context of cluster analysis, but it does not add substantial parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Other parameters like endDate, startDate, and searchType are only covered in the schema.

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 a specific action ('Analyze performance') with a specific resource ('all pages under a URL path prefix') and concrete examples ('/blog/'). It clearly indicates the tool outputs aggregate, per-page, and top-query metrics, which differentiates it from more general analytics tools. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast itself with them, so it misses the full 5.

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 description provides a clear use context: 'Useful for understanding how entire content sections perform.' This tells an agent when the tool is appropriate without ambiguity. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, nor does it point to alternatives such as search_analytics or compare_periods, so it stops short of full guidance.

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