get_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 burden. It discloses that the tool returns data (URL, visits, etc.) but does not explicitly state it is read-only, idempotent, or safe. The name 'get' implies read-only, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the name and schema already suggest.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the purpose and then listing return fields and a usage hint. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description helpfully lists the return fields (URL, visits, pageviews, bounce rate, avg duration) and provides a usage context. It covers the key aspects of the tool's function, though it does not mention ordering, pagination, or default limits explicitly (though limit param is in schema). Overall, it is fairly complete for a retrieval 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%, with each parameter already described in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or clarification beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not go further.

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 returns 'top pages by pageviews' and lists the returned fields (URL, visits, pageviews, bounce rate, avg duration). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_report, get_counter, or list_counters which deal with different 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 says 'Useful for content performance analysis,' giving a usage hint, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_report or get_traffic_sources. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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