get_top_performing_content

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits beyond parameters. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, if it aggregates data, or any constraints on date ranges. The parameter list does not compensate for missing behavioral context.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The parameter list is well-structured but could be more compact. Overall no unnecessary text.

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 lack of output schema and sibling tools, the description fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., fields, format) or how it differs from similar tools. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple parameters.

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 0%, so the description adds value by explaining each parameter: site_url example, date formats, metric options ('clicks, impressions, ctr, position'), and default values. However, it does not specify allowed values for metric (schema lacks enum) and could be clearer.

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 states a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'top performing content', but it does not clarify what constitutes 'content' (e.g., pages, URLs) or differentiate from sibling tool 'query_search_analytics' which may also return content performance data.

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 parameter explanations but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compare_time_periods' or 'get_search_trends'. No explicit context for selection or exclusions.

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