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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world), but the description adds non-obvious behavior: a GSC connection is mandatory, free plans return only a preview while paid plans return full results, and the output is per-conflict with severity and a flag rationale. That is real added value beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler; the purpose and definition come first, followed by output shape, then prerequisites and plan gating. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so ('competing pages, severity, and why it was flagged'), and it discloses the auth prerequisite and tier gating. It does not mention result-count limits or pagination, a minor gap for a data-heavy read 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 both parameters documented (days with range and default, website with example URL). The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Find keyword cannibalization from real Search Console data') plus a defining clause ('queries where two or more of your own pages compete, splitting rankings') that an agent can use to separate this from sibling GSC tools like get_search_console_keywords or get_search_console_changes.

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?

States a clear precondition ('Requires GSC connected') and explains the plan-dependent behavior (preview vs full results), which tells the agent when the tool is applicable. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or an explicit when-not condition, so it is strong context rather than full routing guidance.

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