Top Pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not that this is a read-only, non-destructive query, not how ranking is defined (implicitly clicks descending?), and not pagination or row_limit truncation behavior. For a multi-parameter analytics tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally efficient. It is arguably under-specified rather than concise, but it wastes no words.

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 restated, but with six parameters, no annotations, and a ranking-based semantic, the description leaves the agent without ordering rules, default behavior context, or safety profile. Too thin for a core analytics query 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 100%, so the schema already documents site_url, filters, dates, row_limit, and search_type, making 3 the baseline. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, not even clarifying that 'top' is ranked by the click metric the schema never names.

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 resource (landing pages), a metric (clicks), and a scope (a property), which is enough to place it among siblings like top_queries and performance_by_date. It does not explicitly name how it differs from query_search_analytics, which also returns ranked results, but the 'landing pages' phrasing is a meaningful disambiguator.

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 guidance, no mention of alternatives (top_queries, query_all_rows), and no stated prerequisites such as needing a valid site_url or an accessible property. The agent must infer all of this from the name and siblings.

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