get_search_by_page_query

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, read-only, open-world query, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some genuine behavior: exact-match page_url semantics, a 25000 row ceiling, and the allowed search_type values. It says nothing about rate limits, quota cost, or authentication beyond the GSC_SITE_URL default.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the argument list is terse, with zero filler. The Python-docstring 'Args:' formatting is functional rather than polished, but nothing wastes space.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers purpose plus all parameter semantics for a five-parameter tool. What remains thin is the surrounding context an agent might want: which property is actually queried when site_url is null, and whether results are paginated or capped in practice.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: every one of the five parameters is explained with meaning and default (site_url falls back to GSC_SITE_URL, page_url is an exact match, days defaults to 28, row_limit defaults to 20 with a 25000 cap, search_type enumerates web/image/video/news). The search_type values are especially valuable since the schema defines no enum.

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 opening line names a specific verb and resource: search queries driving traffic to one specific page. That is clearly distinct from site-level siblings like get_search_analytics. It stops short of naming the alternative tool the way a 5 would, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'one specific page' plus the required-ish page_url (exact match) signal a per-page drill-down. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_search_analytics or get_advanced_search_analytics, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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