top_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape with an example, which is helpful, but it does not explicitly state sort order, read-only behavior, or failure modes such as ambiguous site matching. The example adds some transparency but not comprehensive behavioral context.

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 brief, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and includes a compact JSON example that clarifies the return contract. Every part earns its place and there is no 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?

For a simple query tool with three optional parameters fully documented in the schema, the description plus schema is sufficient for invocation. Since there is no output schema, the inline JSON example compensates well. It loses the final point because it omits explicit sorting semantics and any guidance about choosing among sibling top_* 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 100%, so the schema already documents site, limit, and period. The description adds no extra meaning for these parameters; it only shows the output shape. This matches the baseline of 3 for fully documented schemas.

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 clearly states the tool returns top pages by visitors for a site, naming the specific resource ('pages') and metric ('visitors'). It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling top_* tools such as top_sources or top_countries, so it stops short of a 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of sibling tools like top_sources or top_custom_events. It does not mention any exclusions, alternatives, or conditions that would route an agent here versus elsewhere.

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