siteprofiler_top_content

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

No annotations are provided, and the description is a single vague sentence. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what the response contains, whether a URL is required, or any rate-limit or authentication considerations. The tool's observable behavior is completely opaque.

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 extremely short (one sentence), which is concise but under-specified. It lacks the substance needed to be useful. This is not appropriately sized; it is an under-specification rather than a model of brevity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is the sole source of context. It provides almost no information about the tool's inputs, outputs, or behavior, making it inadequate for even a simple tool, especially given the large pool of sibling tools with overlapping purposes.

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?

The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter meaning; it doesn't even mention the 'url' parameter. Thus, the schema does the work, and the description provides no additional value beyond the 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 'Get SiteProfiler top content.' uses a verb and a resource, but it merely restates the tool name without explaining what 'top content' means (e.g., top pages by traffic? top content pieces?). It does not distinguish this tool from the several other siteprofiler_* sibling tools like overview, audience, or backlink_profile.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The description gives no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or when an alternative would be more appropriate.

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