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 of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a safe read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly mention behavior such as default limit, pagination, or response format. It discloses ranking and date-range scoping but lacks deeper 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Get') and includes all key elements: resource type, ranking metrics, and date range. Every word contributes value, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a relatively simple list tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but could be improved. It conveys the core purpose and ranking options, but it does not describe the response structure or pagination behavior. Given the schema's strong coverage and clear sibling context, the overall completeness is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by referencing the sort_by metrics and date-range concept, but it does not elaborate on parameter syntax or defaults beyond what the schema already provides. No new semantic detail is added for start_date/end_date requirements.

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 specifies the tool's function: retrieving top performing pages/URLs ranked by earnings, RPM, or impressions for a date range. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('pages/URLs'), and the ranking criteria distinguish it from sibling tools that focus on summaries, breakdowns, or comparisons.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (querying page-level performance metrics) without enumerating exclusions or alternatives. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the purpose itself implies its niche relative to other tools like get_earnings_summary or get_country_breakdown.

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