query_page_fit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It lacks details on whether the operation is read-only, required permissions, rate limits, or data freshness. The term 'analyze' is vague regarding side effects or output nature.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, it could be expanded slightly to cover output hints without becoming verbose.

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 has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not describe the output format (e.g., what 'mix' or 'intent fit' looks like) or provide enough context for an agent to interpret results correctly.

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 83% (5 of 6 parameters documented). The description adds little beyond the schema, mentioning 'intent fit' and 'content angles' which are not directly linked to parameters. The 'limit' parameter lacks schema description and is not clarified here.

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 analyzes a single URL's query mix, intent fit, and content angles using queries it already ranks for. This is specific and distinguishes it from broader tools like search_analytics or top_queries, though not explicitly mentioning siblings.

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 implies usage when analyzing a specific page's query attributes, but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives like page_query_matrix or search_intent_breakdown.

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