pages_for_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 operation, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by noting it aggregates across spellings/variants and splits impressions between pages. It says nothing about date-range defaults (days=28), result limits, or auth requirements.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and the two dimensions (spellings, impression split). Every clause carries meaning with no padding.

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 8 parameters and zero schema description coverage, the definition is materially incomplete for invocation: default windows, the meaning of 'level', result limits, and date handling are all unaddressed. The output schema relieves it of explaining return values, but the input side remains a black box.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden. It only gestures at the query concept and impressions, leaving days, level, limit, start_date, end_date, and search_type entirely unexplained in both schema and prose.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: which pages rank for one query, split by spelling and impressions. This clearly positions it as the inverse of the sibling queries_for_page and distinct from query_variants. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it does not reach 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. An agent must infer from the description alone that this is the page-side view of a query rather than the query-side view (queries_for_page).

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