get_search_by_page_query

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

Without annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. The verb 'Get' strongly implies a read-only operation, and it adds useful context such as requiring an exact GSC property URL from list_properties. However, it does not explicitly state that no data is modified, nor does it mention rate limits or authentication requirements, which would be relevant for GSC APIs.

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 well-structured and efficient: a one-sentence purpose followed by a logical parameter breakdown. Each sentence earns its place, offering examples, limits, and alternative tool guidance without fluff. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the parameters.

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, the lack of return-value explanation is acceptable. The description thoroughly covers all four parameters, explains edge cases (domain vs. URL property, row_limit max), and provides cross-tool context for pagination. It leaves no ambiguous operational gaps for a query tool.

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% (no property descriptions), so the description compensates fully. It explains site_url with real-world examples and domain vs. specific property behavior, page_url as a specific page target, days as a lookback period, and row_limit with default, max, and recommended ranges. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 opens with a precise verb-resource pair: 'Get search analytics data for a specific page, broken down by query.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_search_analytics (broad query) and get_advanced_search_analytics (paginated bulk export), reinforced by an explicit pointer to that alternative.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'For bulk exports beyond 500 rows, use get_advanced_search_analytics which supports pagination.' It also gives actionable parameter guidance, such as row_limit ranges for different analysis depths and clarification that domain properties cover subdomains, helping the agent decide parameters.

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