on_page_instant_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool returns 'detailed information on how well a particular page is optimized for organic search,' it lacks critical behavioral details: what specific metrics or data are returned, whether this involves external API calls or rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling (beyond a hint in the 'accept_language' parameter description), or performance characteristics. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the core function and avoids unnecessary words. However, given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema) and lack of sibling differentiation, it could benefit from slightly more detail to be fully helpful, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., the structure or types of 'detailed information'), how to interpret results, or any dependencies or limitations. With no output schema and rich parameterization, the description should provide more context to guide effective use, but it falls short.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the input schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the 'url' format, when to use 'custom_js', or default behaviors). With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'get page-specific data with detailed information on how well a particular page is optimized for organic search.' It specifies the verb ('get'), resource ('page-specific data'), and outcome ('optimized for organic search'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its many siblings (e.g., 'on_page_content_parsing', 'on_page_lighthouse'), which appear to be related on-page analysis tools.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools like 'on_page_content_parsing' and 'on_page_lighthouse' that likely serve similar on-page analysis purposes, the description fails to indicate what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred over others. No context, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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