top_pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the default date-range behavior and the three-day trailing lag, which is useful context, but it does not describe pagination, result grouping, or other runtime behavior beyond the defaults.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the first states the tool's purpose and output, the second gives the default time window. Both sentences earn their place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only report with seven parameters covered mostly by schema descriptions, the description conveys the core output fields and default date range. Since there is no output schema, the explicit mention of impressions, CTR, and average position helps. It does not describe row limits or grouping, but that is not critical for this tool's core usage.

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 71%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's property descriptions—it does mention output metrics (impressions, CTR, position), but not parameter semantics. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the resource (pages) and the selection criterion (earning the most clicks from Google Search), and it names the included metrics (impressions, CTR, average position). It does not use an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', and it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as top_queries, but the meaning is still unmistakable.

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?

The only usage guidance is the default time window ('last 28 days ending three days ago'). There is no instruction on when to choose top_pages over query_search_analytics, top_queries, or other alternatives, and no exclusions or explicit-use conditions are provided.

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