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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully discloses the two underlying data sources (site search misses and chat handoffs), which annotations cannot convey. It omits the aggregation window, so the agent has no idea what period the gaps cover.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences that state the content first and the action second, with no padding. 'Free.' is a marketing tag that does not earn its place in a tool description.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should at minimum characterize the shape of the result (ranked list? counts?) and the default lookback period. It conveys what the gaps are but not what an agent receives or how far back it looks.

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% for the single `days` parameter, and the description never mentions a time window at all. The only stray hint, 'Free.', is cost marketing, not parameter semantics, leaving the agent to discover the 1-90 day range from the schema alone.

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 names the exact resource — unanswered help-center questions, split into zero-result searches and chat handoffs — which is far more specific than the opaque tool name 'gaps'. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the nearby sibling help_center_suggestions, which plausibly overlaps.

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?

'Write articles for the top ones' implies the downstream action but gives no explicit trigger, prerequisites, or exclusion rules. An agent cannot tell from this when to prefer it over help_center_suggestions or help_center_overview.

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