queries_for_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: spelling variants are merged by default (group_variants=False disables it) and near-match URLs are substituted and listed in results, which an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the variant-merging caveat, then the URL-matching rule. Slightly awkward final clause ('and listed') but 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the two most consequential parameters are covered. Still, six unspecified parameters and no guidance on period/window semantics leave the definition only adequately complete for a 9-parameter analytics 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 description coverage is 0% across 9 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It usefully documents page_url matching behavior and the group_variants toggle, but leaves days, level, limit, search_type, start_date and end_date entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Which queries send traffic to one page' clearly defines a queries-for-a-page report. It implicitly distinguishes from the inverse sibling pages_for_query, though it never names it explicitly.

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?

Explains how to supply page_url (exact URL, with substring fallback so paths like /blog/ work), which is practical invocation guidance. However, it never says when to use this tool versus pages_for_query or query_search_analytics, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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